get_abap_contract

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

Given no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it returns compressed content (5-10% of source), no method bodies, and implies cheapness. But it doesn't mention permissions, error cases, or side effects.

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, front-loaded with the action and purpose, with zero waste. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description explains the return value (compressed public interface, signatures) adequately for a simple tool. Lacks output schema or error details, but sufficient given tool complexity.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 it returns the compressed public interface (signatures, no method bodies) of a class or interface, using specific verbs and specifying the resource type. It is distinct from sibling tools like SAPRead or analyze_abap_context.

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 explicitly states when to use: to give an agent the API surface of a dependency cheaply before writing code. However, it does not mention when not to use or compare with alternatives.

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