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 does highlight the read-only nature ('[read-only]') and the scope (from anywhere in the repository), but it does not detail authorization requirements, error behavior, or response format.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loading the core purpose and adding critical sibling differentiation without any verbose or redundant content.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, scope, and appropriate usage within the sibling context. It lacks explicit details about the output (source code) but is otherwise complete for a simple read tool with a single parameter.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description adds little beyond the schema. The tool's name and description already imply the parameter's purpose, and the mention of 'PROG/I' provides naming convention context.

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 explicitly states 'Read ANY single ABAP include source by name', using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'ReadProgram' by noting that 'ReadProgram does not read includes'. This provides clear differentiation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for include names (PROG/I)') and when not to ('ReadProgram does not read includes'), along with context about includes living outside any single program tree.

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