ReadFunctionInclude

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

The description includes a '[read-only]' tag and states it returns source code and metadata, signaling a safe read operation. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose potential error conditions, size limits, or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and read-only hint; the second provides concrete usage examples. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description mentions returning 'source code and include metadata' but lacks specifics on the metadata structure or response format. Version parameter implications are covered in schema, but overall completeness is adequate but not detailed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all three parameters (function_group_name, include_name, version). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, achieving the baseline of 3.

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 tool reads ABAP function group include source code and metadata, using specific verbs like 'read' and provides example queries (e.g., 'show function group include code'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ListFunctionGroupIncludes (which lists includes) and GetInclude (generic include) by focusing on function group includes specifically.

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 example queries ('show function group include code') but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives. It provides clear context for when to invoke, lacking only exclusions.

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