GetTableVersionDiff

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

The description includes a '[read-only]' tag, indicating no state modifications, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or what happens with invalid URIs. With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the read-only hint.

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 essential information. No unnecessary words, and the read-only hint is placed first for quick scanning.

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?

While the description covers purpose and input source, it does not describe the output format (e.g., unified diff string) or any limitations. Given the simplicity of the tool and absence of an output schema, more detail on the return value would improve 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions that mention they come from GetTableVersions entries (100% coverage). The tool description's mention of GetTableVersions is redundant, adding no new semantic meaning 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 tool computes a unified diff between two ABAP table versions using content_uris. It specifies the resource (table versions) and verb (compute), and the mention of GetTableVersions distinguishes it from similar diff tools for other objects.

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 the tool should be used after retrieving content_uris from GetTableVersions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Usage guidance is only implicitly provided.

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