GetTable

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

The description mentions version support ('active or inactive'), which is useful, but lacks disclosure of authorization needs, side effects, or error behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and is minimal.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve ABAP table definition') and adds a key feature (version support). No wasted words.

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 retrieval tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose and versioning. However, it could mention output format or typical usage notes, but this is not critical.

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 both parameters described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., version enum values). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 table definition'), and distinguishes from siblings like ActivateTable, CreateTable, and other Get* tools by focusing on reading definitions. It is not a tautology.

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 table definitions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., GetTableContents, GetObjectInfo). No when-not-to-use or recommendations are given.

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