GetDdlVersions

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly marks the tool as [read-only] and lists the returned fields (versionId, author, etc.). However, it does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as result ordering, pagination limits, or error conditions, which would be helpful for safe invocation.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and read-only nature; the second enumerates return fields. Every word adds value, making it efficient for an 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 no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields. However, it lacks context on result ordering (e.g., by version descending), potential pagination, or how to interpret the content_uri. For a version history tool, these gaps reduce completeness.

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 provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the sole parameter 'ddl_name'. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, such as formatting expectations or examples, so it meets the baseline.

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 'List the SAP version history of a CDS view (DDL source)', specifying the verb 'List' and the resource 'version history'. It distinguishes from the sibling GetDdlVersionSource by noting that the returned content_uri is used to fetch source via that tool, and also from other version tools by naming DDL source specifically.

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 implies usage for listing versions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetDdlVersionDiff or other object version tools. There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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