GetTableContents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It correctly discloses that the tool is read-only via '[read-only]'. It implies the tool returns rows of data. However, it does not discuss other behavioral traits like pagination, performance implications, or error handling. The disclosure is sufficient but 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, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical analogy. Every word is necessary: '[read-only]' signals safety, 'Retrieve contents (data preview) of an ABAP database table or CDS view' states purpose and scope, and 'Returns rows of data like SE16/SE16N' clarifies output. No wasted words; highly concise.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It conveys the core function, read-only nature, and return type via analogy. However, it could be more explicit about the return format (e.g., column details) given the absence of an output schema. Still, the analogy provides enough context for an agent to infer tabular data.

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 schema already fully describes the parameters (table_name: 'Name of the ABAP table', max_rows: 'Maximum number of rows to retrieve'). The description adds minimal extra meaning by specifying 'ABAP database table or CDS view', slightly broadening the schema's 'ABAP table'. Overall, the description provides little additional value 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 explicitly states the action 'Retrieve contents (data preview)' and the resource 'ABAP database table or CDS view'. It compares to SE16/SE16N, common ABAP data browsers, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'GetTable' (metadata) or 'GetView' (metadata). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 indicates read-only usage with '[read-only]' and provides a real-world analogy (SE16/SE16N). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other siblings (e.g., GetTable for structure) or when not to use it. The guidance is implied but not explicit, so it is adequate but not outstanding.

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