search_abap_syntax

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses behavior: automatically identifies main keyword, loads documentation page, and returns relevant section. This implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or error handling. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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, each purposeful. First sentence defines functionality, second provides usage guidance. No redundant words or fluff. Front-loaded with core action.

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, description adequately explains input and process. It does not specify return format (e.g., text, JSON) or error handling, but for a simple search tool with two parameters and high schema coverage, this is mostly complete. Slightly lacking for full transparency.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about how the tool processes the query (identifies main keyword, loads page), but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Minimal added value.

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?

Description clearly states it searches official ABAP syntax documentation and returns relevant syntax section, using specific verb 'searches' and resource 'ABAP syntax documentation'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_sap_web' which searches broader SAP web, and 'analyze_abap_context' which analyzes ABAP code 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?

Explicitly recommends calling 'before writing ABAP code to ensure correct syntax', giving clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5.

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