GetFunctionInclude

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and largely meets it: it declares read-only, says exactly what is returned (the part read), and discloses the non-obvious recordable behavior in batch mode (empty content, answer retrieved by number). It omits error/not-found behavior and any authorization notes.

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?

One front-loaded sentence naming the read target and its variants, followed by a short batch-mode caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; the long first sentence is the only mild cost.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, defaults, return value and batch semantics. Only edge-case behavior (missing include, inactive version absent) is left unaddressed.

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% with enums on part and version, so the schema already documents every parameter including defaults. The description restates the part/version choices without adding format or naming constraints beyond the schema, so 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 (reads) and resource (the include of the named ABAP function group), plus the two variants it can return (source vs ADT metadata). An agent can distinguish it from ListFunctionGroupIncludes or GetFunctionGroup, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by defaults (part=source, version=active) and by the read scope, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over GetInclude or the function-module/file-level read tools. The batch-mode note gives context but not selection guidance.

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