ListFunctionGroupIncludes

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

No structured annotations are provided, but the description manually tags the tool as [read-only], which conveys the safety profile. It adds nothing about return format, pagination, or whether the function group must exist, leaving some behavioral burden unmet for an annotation-free tool.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the [read-only] qualifier front-loaded. No wasted words, though the parenthetical is slightly terse.

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 read-only list tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It omits any hint of what the returned include list looks like or how it relates to sibling list tools, which would help an agent act with confidence.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents function_group_name. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (includes of an ABAP function group) and even clarifies what the includes are (TOP, custom). However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as ListFunctionModules or GetIncludesList, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ListFunctionModules or GetInclude. The usage is only implied by the name and description; no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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