GetIncludesList

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

The description discloses that the operation is read-only and recursive, which are behavioral traits not covered by annotations (none are provided). However, it does not describe the output format, pagination, or side effects beyond listing, and the detailed parameter's behavior is only documented in the schema, not the description. Given the lack of annotations, the description carries the burden and only partially fulfills it.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the read-only hint and core recursive behavior. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to the purpose.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the return value looks like. It only says 'list ALL include files' without specifying whether it returns names, full metadata, or how the 'detailed' parameter changes the response. The schema covers parameters but not return structure, leaving an agent uncertain about the expected output. For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, this is a significant 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%, so all four parameters are already documented with descriptions, including the detailed flag and object_type enum. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (discover and list), a clear resource (all include files within an ABAP program or include), and the recursive scope. It distinguishes itself from generic listing tools like GetStructuresList by focusing on includes, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage context is implied: an agent would use this when they need to enumerate include files for a given ABAP object. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative sibling tools (e.g., GetStructuresList, GetPackageContents) might be more appropriate for different scenarios.

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