bw_adso_details

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does say the result is 'parsed,' that the payload may include configuration, DDIC tables, and links when the enriched client path is available, and that otherwise a standard details projection is returned. This is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response shape is, or how the enriched path is determined.

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?

The description is compact at two sentences and leads with the core purpose. 'Prefer outputPath' is terse to the point of ambiguity, but it does not waste words. Each sentence contributes meaningful information, though the instruction could be clearer.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many similar siblings, the description leaves important gaps: id and forceCacheUpdate are unexplained, the return projection is vague, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The rich outputPath schema note helps, but the overall definition is not complete enough for an agent to call this confidently without further inference.

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 only 33%, and the main description does not compensate. It never explains what 'id' refers to or what forceCacheUpdate controls. 'Prefer outputPath' hints at outputPath's importance, but the description leaves the required parameter and the boolean semantics undocumented, placing too much burden on the sparse schema.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get parsed ADSO metadata (fields, indexes, partitioning).' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from raw-XML or transformation-focused siblings like bw_adso_get_xml and bw_adso_transformations. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself with similar *_details tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as bw_adso_versions, bw_adso_transformations, or bw_adso_get_xml. 'Prefer outputPath' is a parameter-level instruction rather than a tool-selection guideline. The enriched-path conditional describes behavior, not usage context, so the agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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