GetObjectVersions

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It declares read-only behavior and lists return fields, but does not disclose performance implications, rate limits, or any potential destructive actions. The mention of opaque content_uri adds transparency about how to get version source.

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?

A single sentence that is well-structured and front-loaded with important flags ('[read-only]' and 'List the version history'). Every part is necessary and there is no filler. Highly concise.

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 no output schema, description adequately covers return fields and mentions the conditional param for function_group_name. It also links to GetObjectVersionSource. Missing detailed explanation of pagination or ordering, but sufficient for a list operation.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, describing all three parameters. Description does not add significant meaning beyond schema; it restates object_type and object_name as required and notes function_group_name for function_module. While clear, it adds no extra semantics.

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 lists version history of an ABAP object, specifies return fields (versionId, author, updatedAt, etc.), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like GetObjectVersionSource and GetObjectVersionDiff by mentioning the opaque content_uri. It's specific and actionable.

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?

Description implies read-only usage with '[read-only]' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other version-related tools (e.g., GetClassVersions, GetObjectVersionDiff). No alternative tools are mentioned, though it does guide using GetObjectVersionSource for fetching source from the content_uri.

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