GetObjectInfo

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

The description declares the tool as read-only via '[read-only]' and mentions the default enrichment behavior. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on potential performance impacts for large trees, error handling for invalid types, or any side effects beyond the stated read operation.

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 two sentences, front-loads the essential read-only qualifier, and conveys all necessary behavioral and input information without unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

While the description explains the tool's purpose and parameters, it lacks details about the output structure (format of tree nodes, fields returned). Without an output schema, more specificity about the return value would be beneficial for an agent to process the results correctly.

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?

All parameters are described in the input schema, but the description adds value by explaining that parent_type values like 'DEVC/K' correspond to specific object types, and clarifies that enrich adds description/package via SearchObject. This context helps agents understand parameter purpose beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 returns an ABAP object tree structure for specific object types (DEVC, CLAS, PROG, FUGR, etc.) and explains the tree components (root, group nodes, leaves) up to maxDepth. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like GetClass or GetPackage which return single objects, not tree hierarchies.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetPackageTree or GetObjectStructure. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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