GetDdl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, whether the caller must be authenticated, or what the response contains. The only behavioral note (active/inactive version) duplicates 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded. Nothing wastes space.

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?

For a simple read-only getter with no output schema and fully covered parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, given numerous similar Get*Ddl* siblings, an agent lacks enough context to confidently select this tool over them.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well documented with an enum and default for version. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming conventions for ddl_name beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (ABAP DDL source definition), and adds that it can read active or inactive versions. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like GetDdlVersionSource or GetDdlVersions, which also surface DDL source/version data.

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 mention of active vs inactive version implies a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the alternative sibling tools. Usage must be inferred.

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