GetStructure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that large structures can be paged with startLine/maxLines, which is a behavioral trait about result size and iteration, not present in the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve ABAP Structure') and immediately follows with the key usage tip about paging. No wasted words, fully efficient.

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?

For a retrieval tool with pagination parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the primary concern of handling large results. It does not describe the return format or what a structure contains, but given the schema's detailed parameter docs and the annotations covering safety, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps exist but are not critical.

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 schema already documents all parameters including their ranges and semantics. The description adds a hint about paging behavior but does not introduce new meaning beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions already provide. 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('ABAP Structure'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like GetTable, GetFunction, etc., without needing to open their schemas. The resource type is unambiguous.

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 mentions paging for large structures, which gives some usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or exclude situations. It lacks any direct comparison with sibling tools (e.g., when to use GetStructure vs GetTypeInfo), leaving tool selection to inference from the name.

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