GetTableContents

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable context: max_rows bounds SAP rows, startLine/maxLines handle XML pagination, and a byte cap may truncate results. This goes beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between the two pagination mechanisms and the serialized-size nuance.

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 focused sentences: the first states the core purpose; the second explains the two limiting parameters in a compact way. No wasted words, and the most important action is front-loaded.

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 read-only data retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what it returns (textual XML), how pagination works, and a caveat about byte caps. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but those are not critical for a simple read operation, especially when annotations cover safety.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter names and descriptions already exist. The description adds meaning by clarifying that max_rows refers to SAP rows (not returned XML lines) and that startLine/maxLines apply specifically to the textual XML output when serialization is large. This nuance is not in the schema and improves understanding of how the parameters interact.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Retrieve contents of an ABAP table.' It immediately distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like GetTable or GetFunctionGroup, which are metadata/definition retrievers. The mention of 'max_rows limits SAP rows' and XML paging further clarifies scope.

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 implies usage (fetching table data) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor when to avoid it. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names. Some guidance about the byte-cap behavior is given, but not tool-selection context.

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