GetInterface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions reading and version support, but neglects to disclose permissions, side effects, error handling, or what happens for non-existent interfaces. As a read operation, it is likely safe, but the description does not confirm this or any other behavioral details.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the core purpose. 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?

Given the simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is adequate for a basic read tool. However, it could mention what the returned definition contains (e.g., source code, metadata). It does not describe return value or conditions like error cases, which would enhance completeness for an agent.

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%, both parameters are documented in the schema (e.g., version enum and default). The description adds 'Supports reading active or inactive version', which reinforces the schema's explanation but does not provide additional meaning beyond it. 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 clearly states it retrieves an ABAP interface definition and supports reading active or inactive versions. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'ABAP interface definition' are specific. Among sibling tools like ActivateInterface, CheckInterface, DeleteInterface, UpdateInterface, this read-only tool is distinctly identified.

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 implicitly indicates this tool is for reading interface definitions, as opposed to activating, checking, or deleting. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the large set of sibling tools, a bit more explicit guidance could improve, but the context is clear.

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