GetTransaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares the tool as read-only, which is good for behavioral transparency. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., whether the transaction must exist).

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 sentence, front-loaded with the read-only tag, and every word adds value. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the simple input schema (one parameter, no output schema) and abundance of sibling tools, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose. It does not elaborate on return format, but the details listed imply what the agent can expect.

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 describes the single parameter 'transaction_name' as 'Name of the ABAP transaction'. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond clarifying that it is an 'ABAP transaction (t-code)', which is consistent with 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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'ABAP transaction (t-code) details', listing specific details like program, screen, authorization object, and transaction type. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'Get*' tools by naming the specific resource.

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 through the '[read-only]' tag but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetClass or GetTable. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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