ListFunctionGroupIncludes

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

With no annotations, the description does step in to declare read-only semantics and a batch-mode restriction, which is useful context. It says nothing about the shape or size of the returned include list, ordering, or what happens for a nonexistent function group.

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?

Two short sentences with the read-only tag front-loaded and zero redundant phrasing. The trailing batch-mode clause is terse but not explained, keeping it just shy of a top mark.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive list operation with no output schema, the description covers what it returns at a conceptual level and a key operational constraint. Minor gaps remain around return contents and error behavior.

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?

Single parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents 'function_group_name'. The description adds no syntax, naming-convention, or case-sensitivity guidance beyond that, making this a baseline case.

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 (TOP, custom) of an ABAP function group'), which distinguishes it from the sibling ListFunctionModules. It stops short of naming the related siblings GetIncludesList or GetFunctionInclude, so the boundary is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Only hint of conditional usage is 'Runs outside batch mode', which is a real constraint but leaves the agent to guess when to prefer this over GetIncludesList or GetFunctionInclude. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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