GetInactiveObjects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the read-only nature via the '[read-only]' tag and explains the object set returned, which is genuine behavioral context. However, it omits anything about the return shape, whether the list is scoped to a session/system or paginated, and any auth or rate considerations.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, and the read-only marker plus core definition are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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, zero-required-param read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies the resource, its scope, and the object types. It could go one step further by noting the relationship to the Activate* tools (i.e., what you do with the result), which is the only real gap.

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% and the single 'detail' enum is fully documented in the schema with per-value meaning. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 (Get) plus resource (inactive ABAP objects) and defines the term inline — 'modified but not yet activated, pending activation' — so an agent knows exactly what set it returns. It also names the concrete object kinds (classes, tables, CDS views) covered, which distinguishes it from the many Activate* siblings that mutate rather than list.

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 the use case (surveying pending activations) but never explicitly says when to call this versus alternatives such as ActivateObjects or GetObjectsList, nor does it state prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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