GetInterface

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds a paging recommendation and implies that large responses are possible, but it doesn't describe return format or error behavior. That's acceptable but not rich.

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 no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the paging guidance is placed immediately after where it's most relevant. Every clause 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 tool is a straightforward source-retrieval operation with annotations covering the safety profile and schema covering all parameters. The description adds the only missing piece — guidance on paging large interfaces — so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 description doesn't need to re-document parameters. It does add value by connecting startLine/maxLines to the paging behavior, but it doesn't provide any syntax or format details beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('ABAP interface source code'), making the tool's function immediately clear. The sibling tools are all different object-type retrievers (GetClass, GetTable, etc.), so identifying 'ABAP interface' as the target sufficiently distinguishes this tool from them.

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 gives a clear usage context: use this when you need ABAP interface source. It also provides an explicit in-tool directive for large interfaces ('use startLine/maxLines to page through the source'), which is actionable guidance. It doesn't name alternative sibling tools, but the object-type split makes exclusion unnecessary.

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