GetClassVersions

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

The description begins with '[read-only]' indicating non-destructive behavior. It lists all returned fields (versionId, author, etc.) and notes conditional availability of transport info. No annotation provided, so description carries the burden well. However, no mention of authentication or rate limits.

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 sentence plus a list of returned fields, all front-loaded. No wasted words; every part adds value. Perfectly concise for the information conveyed.

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?

With one parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description explains the output fields and links to GetClassVersionSource. It lacks mention of pagination or limits, but for a version listing tool, it's largely complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter 'class_name' described as 'ABAP class name.' The description adds context by framing it as 'SAP version history of a ABAP class' and hints at output, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists SAP version history of an ABAP class, specifying the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling GetClassVersionSource by mentioning the content_uri for fetching source. A specific verb-resource pair with clear 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetClassVersionDiff or other Get*Versions tools. It implies a follow-up action via GetClassVersionSource but lacks when-not-to-use guidance. With many sibling version tools, more differentiation would help.

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