GetLocalMacros

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys read-only intent via 'Retrieve' and adds a genuinely useful caveat that macros are only supported in older ABAP versions, but it says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or what happens when macros do not exist in a newer system.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the version option and the compatibility caveat. No filler, though the parenthetical '(macros include)' is slightly awkward.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the action, the version option, and the important ABAP-version limitation. Nothing critical to a correct call is missing, though a note on what is returned when no macros exist would round it out.

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%, with the version enum and default already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the active/inactive choice and does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve local macros source code from a class'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like GetLocalTypes, GetLocalDefinitions, and GetLocalTestClass that operate on the same parent class. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It mentions that active or inactive versions can be read and adds a version-support caveat, which implies usage context, but it never states when to choose this tool over GetLocalTypes/GetLocalDefinitions or any prerequisite for use. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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