GetFunctionModuleVersionDiff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It opens with [read-only], which is a key behavioral trait. Beyond that, it adds no details about potential errors, size limits, or what happens if URIs are invalid. This is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded with [read-only], and contains only essential information. Every part is relevant: the verb, the resource, the input method, and the source of the URIs. No wasted words.

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 diff tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, input source, and safety. It does not explain the output format (unified diff details) or any limitations, but the core functionality is clearly communicated. Slightly lacking but generally 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions already state 'Opaque content_uri of the OLD/base version (from a GetFunctionModuleVersions entry).' The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not compensate with extra context because schema already has it.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Compute' and resource 'unified diff between two ABAP function module versions'. It specifies the input source (content_uris from GetFunctionModuleVersions) and uses [read-only] prefix to indicate safety. This is specific and distinct from sibling diff tools for other object types.

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?

Description explicitly says to use content_uris taken from GetFunctionModuleVersions entries, providing clear context on prerequisite. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or list alternative tools for similar purposes, though the tool's name and description differentiate it sufficiently.

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