SAPLint

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that lint actions run locally while formatter settings call the SAP system, that set_formatter_settings is blocked in read-only mode, and that the tool is system-aware (auto-selects cloud or on-prem rules). These behavioral traits are critical for the agent to understand side effects and constraints.

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 well-structured with bullet points for each action and clear separation of concerns. It front-loads the overall purpose. However, it could be slightly more concise by reducing redundancy (e.g., 'Returns fixed source' could be merged with action description). Still, every sentence 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?

Given the complexity (6 actions, two execution modes, 6 parameters), the description covers all necessary aspects: actions, parameter usage, local vs system, read-only restrictions, and differentiation from siblings. There is no output schema, but return values for each action are described (errors/warnings, fixed source, list of rules, formatted source). The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining which parameters are needed per action (e.g., source not needed for list_rules/get_formatter_settings), the purpose of the name parameter (filename detection), and that rules object overrides system defaults. This contextual grouping compensates for the schema's individual descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool runs local abaplint rules on ABAP and CDS source code, enumerates six actions with specific purposes, and distinguishes from the sibling SAPDiagnose by noting it handles server-side checks. The verb 'Run' and resource 'abaplint rules' are specific and unique among siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool vs SAPDiagnose: 'For server-side checks (ATC, syntax check, unit tests), use SAPDiagnose instead.' It also provides guidance on when each action is appropriate (e.g., 'No source needed' for list_rules/get_formatter_settings, 'Requires source' for others).

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