GetObjectInfo

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

Description explicitly states [read-only], discloses tree depth up to maxDepth, and enrichment behavior via SearchObject. This is good for a read-only tool without annotations. Missing details on default depth per type or error handling.

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 sentences: first states purpose and types, second explains tree structure, third describes enrichment. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information.

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 read-only tree query with no output schema, description covers core behavior (types, tree, enrichment, depth). Lacks return structure details and error handling, but adequate given complexity.

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%, but description adds context: enrichment depends on SearchObject, and depth is constrained. Small inconsistency: schema says maxDepth default=1, description says depends on type.

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?

Description clearly states it returns ABAP object tree structure for specific types (DEVC, CLAS, PROG, FUGR) with root, group nodes, and leaves. It lists types and mentions enrichment, which distinguishes from generic getters, though not explicitly from similar tree tools like GetObjectStructure.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetObjectStructure or GetClass. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide selection criteria beyond the listed types.

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