GetPackage

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions reading active/inactive versions, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or what happens if the package does not exist. The behavior is simple, so it is acceptable but not thorough.

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 concise sentence that clearly conveys purpose and key feature (active/inactive version). No unnecessary words; efficiently front-loaded.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple 2-parameter read tool without output schema. However, it does not specify the return format or address edge cases, which could be improved for completeness.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds marginal value indicating the metadata includes description and super-package, but does not detail parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 action 'retrieve' and the resource 'ABAP package metadata', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like CreatePackage, DeletePackage, and CheckPackage by focusing on reading, not modifying.

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 implies usage for reading metadata of active or inactive packages, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No mention of contexts where it should not be used.

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