GetPackageContents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose read-only status and that the result is a flat list supporting recursive traversal, which is useful. However it omits volume/ordering concerns and any note on how deeply nested packages affect the response.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the read-only marker before the purpose. No wasted wording, though it is nearly minimal.

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 simple 4-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, read-only status, and result shape. It could say more about what object kinds are returned, but it is adequate for invocation.

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 four parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only loosely echoes the recursion behavior tied to include_subpackages/max_depth without adding format or default detail 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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (objects inside an ABAP package) plus the output shape (flat list). It is largely distinguishable from tree-oriented siblings like GetPackageTree, but does not explicitly name or contrast with them.

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 mention of recursive subpackage traversal hints at a use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives (GetPackageTree, GetObjectsList, GetObjectsByType). The agent is left to infer selection.

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