GetTableVersions

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

The description starts with '[read-only]', clearly indicating it's a non-destructive read operation. It lists the exact return fields and notes that the content_uri is opaque, which helps manage expectations. However, it does not mention error conditions, permissions, or ordering, leaving some gaps.

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 concise: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a sentence enumerating return fields. Both sentences provide essential information without unnecessary fluff.

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 covers the tool's purpose, return fields, and links to a related tool. It does not discuss ordering, limits, or error handling, but for a simple listing operation it is largely adequate.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter 'table_name' with the description 'ABAP table name.' The description does not add additional semantics beyond that, but given 100% schema coverage, a 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 verb (List), resource (SAP version history of an ABAP table), and distinguishes from sibling version tools by specifying 'table'. It also mentions the specific return fields, including the opaque content_uri linking to GetTableVersionSource, further clarifying its role.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over its siblings (like GetTableVersionDiff or GetTableVersionSource). While it implies usage when needing a list of versions, it could provide more guidance on alternatives and exclusions.

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