GetObjectsList

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is read-only and recursive, but omits details on authorization requirements, performance implications, error handling, or output structure. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the tool's purpose and key behaviors. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information. Exceptionally efficient.

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 the complexity of the tool (4 params, many sibling tools) and lack of output schema, the description covers the core functionality (recursive retrieval, object types) but omits details about return format, pagination, or error states. It is sufficient for basic understanding but incomplete for advanced usage.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions. For example, parent_type values are listed in the description, but the schema already covers them. No additional semantic value provided.

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 the tool retrieves child ABAP repository objects recursively for a given parent, listing specific object types (PROG, FUGR, CLAS, DEVC) and including nested includes and subcomponents. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like GetPackageContents or GetObjectInfo, which serve different purposes.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as GetPackageContents, GetIncludesList, or GetObjectStructure. It lacks explicit context about preferred scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without comparative information.

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