GetInclude

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It marks the operation as '[read-only]' and clarifies the repository-wide scope. However, it does not mention potential errors, return format, or side effects, which for a read-only source fetch are minimal. The read-only marker and scope add useful transparency beyond a bare statement.

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 sentences, no redundancy. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a critical usage caveat. Every word 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and routing. It omits explicit return value description, but the read nature makes it implicit. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to call correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'include_name' is described). The description does not add any detail beyond the schema, such as format, case-sensitivity, or examples. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('ABAP include source'), and scope ('by name, from anywhere in the repository'). It also distinguishes itself from the likely sibling ReadProgram, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'This is the correct tool for include names (PROG/I)'. It also provides an exclusion: 'ReadProgram does not read includes'. This gives clear routing between tools.

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