list_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the folder-scoping behavior but says nothing about recursion, result ordering, or behavior on a missing/invalid path.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block. No filler, though the 'Args:' formatting is slightly redundant given the schema already lists the path argument.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a listing tool the description omits whether the scan is recursive, what ordering or filtering applies, and what happens when the folder contains no ABAP objects — leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% and one parameter, the description carries the burden and does so: it clarifies 'path' is a project folder relative to the workspace root, which the schema's bare 'Path' title with default '.' does not convey. Some ambiguity remains (e.g., whether nested folders are searched).

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 ('ABAP objects (classes, interfaces, programs...)') with the scoping context ('in an abapGit folder'). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names or contrasts itself with the siblings (outline_object, check_conventions, lint, run_tests).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the one-line purpose statement.

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