GetObjectsByType

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 does disclose the read-only nature via the '[read-only]' tag, which is genuine value. Beyond that it says nothing about return shape, pagination, ordering, or whether node_id has side effects, leaving sizable gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler, and the core action plus scope is front-loaded in the first sentence before the use-case hint. Efficient and well-ordered, though not maximally tight.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it retrieves, the type dimension, and the parent-node scope, which is enough to call it correctly. The absence of any mention of result volume or pagination and of differentiation from sibling listers is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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%, so all six parameters (including required node_id, parent_name, parent_tech_name, parent_type) are documented in the schema itself. The description only restates 'specific type' and 'parent node' without adding format, ordering, or default semantics beyond what the schema gives, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves all ABAP objects of a specific type') and enriches it with concrete examples (classes, tables, programs, interfaces) plus the scoping constraint ('under a given parent node'). It is clear, but it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling GetObjectsList or GetPackageContents, so it stops 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?

The second sentence gives implied usage ('listing all objects of one type within a package or composite object'), which tells the agent the scenarios where this fits. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling listings like GetObjectsList, nor any prerequisite or exclusion, leaving routing to inference.

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