ListFunctionGroupIncludes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions '[read-only]' and the resource type, omitting details about side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, pagination, or return behavior. This minimal information leaves the AI agent uncertain about safety and constraints.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with a useful '[read-only]' prefix. Every part contributes meaning, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separated info) without losing brevity. It is well front-loaded with the read-only indication.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the returned includes look like (e.g., names, metadata), whether the list is exhaustive, or how it handles empty groups. The sibling context suggests similar tools, but this description lacks closure for an agent deciding on usage.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a description ('Function group name (e.g., Z_MY_FG).'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, as it does not elaborate on format, character restrictions, or behavior when the group does not exist.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'includes (TOP, custom) of an ABAP function group', which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ListFunctionModules' (lists modules) and 'GetFunctionGroup' (gets function group details). The read-only tag further clarifies the operation type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'GetIncludesList' or other list tools. It does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or scoping advice like when to use this over a similar tool. The only hint is '[read-only]', which is insufficient for decision-making.

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