GetProgram

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that paging is available for large programs and suggests retrieving all at once may be problematic, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe response format or error behavior, and the added behavioral value is modest.

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, first states purpose, second gives actionable paging advice. No filler, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. Excellent conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

With a clear purpose, fully documented parameters in the schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly state that the response contains source lines, but 'Retrieve ABAP program source code' implies that. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool 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%, with startLine and maxLines fully documented (including beyond-EOF behavior and byte cap). The description merely references these parameters for paging without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 states 'Retrieve ABAP program source code' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like GetFunction or GetInclude, which target different ABAP objects. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides clear guidance on paging for large programs ('For large programs, use startLine/maxLines to page through the source'), which is a usage context. However, it does not mention when to prefer GetProgram over its siblings (e.g., GetFunction, GetInclude), so alternative-selection guidance is absent. The paging advice is useful but not about tool choice.

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