analyze_abap_context

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes reading, detecting, and retrieving, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, side effects, failure modes, or permissions needed. Does not disclose what 'structured context report' contains.

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 sentences with zero fluff. First sentence delivers core functionality; second sentence contextualizes as workflow entry point. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 3 parameters (all with enums) and no output schema, description covers purpose and mode semantics adequately. However, lacks hints about output structure or prerequisites. Slightly incomplete for a tool that likely produces complex results, but reasonable for an entry-point tool.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). Description adds meaningful context beyond schema: 'shallow = main source + direct includes only; deep = recursively all references' and explains full vs contract modes by token usage. Adds value above raw enum descriptions.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Analyzes the complete context of an ABAP object' with specifics (reads source, detects references, retrieves metadata, returns structured report). Identifies as entry point for a workflow, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_abap_contract or SAPRead.

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?

Implied usage as entry point for abap_develop workflow, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternatives mentioned. Lacks guidance on selecting between shallow/deep or full/contract modes for different scenarios.

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