GetClass

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool retrieves source code and supports version choice, implying read-only behavior, but does not confirm side effects, error handling, or security considerations. The description adds little beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains no unnecessary words or phrases, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core function. However, it lacks details on return format, error cases, and usage context, which would be helpful for completeness. The schema richness partially compensates.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage, describing both parameters (class_name and version) with clear definitions and enum. The description's line about version support is redundant with the schema, adding no new semantic value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate per guidelines for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Retrieve ABAP class source code') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ActivateClass, DeleteClass, etc., which have different operations. The mention of supporting active or inactive versions further clarifies its scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetInterface or GetFunctionModule, nor are any prerequisites (e.g., class existence) mentioned. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.