ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists, such as multiple debugger tools (e.g., debuggerSetBreakpoints, debuggerDeleteBreakpoints) and Git operations (e.g., gitPullRepo, pushRepo) that could be consolidated. However, descriptions generally clarify their specific functions, reducing confusion.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming conventions are mixed, with tools using camelCase (e.g., abapDocumentation), snake_case (e.g., create_transport), and inconsistent verb styles (e.g., activateByName vs. createObject). While readable, the lack of a uniform pattern detracts from predictability.
Tool Count2/5
With 127 tools, the count is excessive for an MCP server, making it overwhelming and difficult to navigate. This many tools suggests poor scoping, as many functions could be grouped or omitted without losing core functionality.
Completeness5/5
The tool set comprehensively covers ABAP development and system management, including object lifecycle (create, activate, delete), debugging, testing, Git integration, and transport management. No obvious gaps are present for the domain.
Average 2.5/5 across 127 of 127 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 6 of 6 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 12 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Applies fix edits' implies a mutation or write operation but offers no details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. It fails to describe any behavioral traits beyond the minimal action hint, leaving critical operational context unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with only three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded critical details and wastes its brevity on a tautology, failing to use its limited space to add meaningful value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by a mutation tool with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'fix edits' are, what the tool returns, or any operational constraints, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 required parameters ('proposal' and 'source') with 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter documentation exists in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they interact, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Applies fix edits' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'fixEdits' without clarifying what specific action is performed or what resource is involved. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings, leaving the purpose vague and minimally informative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools like 'fixProposals', 'setObjectSource', and 'syntaxCheckCode', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to determine appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Find symbol definition' implies a read-only lookup operation, but it doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with 7 parameters, this minimal description fails to convey any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification—it's too minimal to be helpful. While structured efficiently, it lacks the necessary detail for a tool of this complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or provide any context for the numerous parameters. For a lookup tool in a development environment with many siblings, this leaves critical gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about parameters like 'url', 'source', 'line', 'startCol', 'endCol', 'implementation', or 'mainProgram'. Without this, the agent cannot understand what inputs are needed or their meanings, making parameter usage guesswork.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find symbol definition' restates the tool name 'findDefinition' in slightly different wording, making it tautological. While it indicates a search/retrieval action related to symbols, it lacks specificity about what kind of symbols (e.g., code symbols, ABAP objects) or what 'definition' entails. Compared to sibling tools like 'searchObject' or 'ddicElement', it doesn't clearly differentiate its scope or target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'searchObject', 'ddicElement', 'codeCompletion', and 'findObjectPath' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. 'Checks a Git repository' gives no insight into what the tool actually does, what it returns, whether it modifies anything, what authentication is required, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent cannot understand what operation will be performed or what to expect as a result.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Checks a Git repository.') but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficient. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is the purpose), it fails to provide necessary information. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity, and this description is too minimal to be helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'checking' means, what the tool returns, when to use it, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool that presumably performs some operation on Git repositories, this minimal description leaves the agent with insufficient information to understand or use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 three parameters (repo, user, password) with their types and optionality. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Checks a Git repository' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'checkRepo'. While it indicates the tool operates on Git repositories, it doesn't specify what 'checks' means - whether it's checking status, health, connectivity, permissions, or something else. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling Git tools like gitRepos, gitPullRepo, or gitExternalRepoInfo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or scenarios where checkRepo would be appropriate versus other Git-related tools in the sibling list. There's no indication of what problem this tool solves or when an agent should select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get code completion suggestions') without any details on how it behaves—such as whether it's read-only or mutative, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what the output looks like. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a code completion tool with 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an AI agent to understand how to use the tool effectively, what it returns, or its behavioral constraints, making it inadequate for the tool's likely functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean (e.g., 'sourceUrl', 'source', 'line', 'column'), their expected formats, or how they influence the completion suggestions. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get code completion suggestions' restates the tool name 'codeCompletion' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'code completion suggestions', but lacks detail on what this entails (e.g., for what language, IDE, or context), and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'codeCompletionElement' or 'codeCompletionFull'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'codeCompletionElement' and 'codeCompletionFull' present, there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'retrieves', implying a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for its minimal content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose beyond the name, provide usage guidelines, detail parameters, or describe expected behavior or outputs, making it inadequate for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (sourceUrl, source, line, column) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics, failing to explain what these inputs represent or how they should be used, which is critical given the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves code completion element information' restates the tool name 'codeCompletionElement' in a tautological manner. It specifies the verb 'retrieves' and resource 'code completion element information', but doesn't clarify what this information entails or how it differs from the sibling tool 'codeCompletion' or 'codeCompletionFull'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'codeCompletion' or 'codeCompletionFull'. The description offers no context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe any behavioral traits, such as whether it's a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what the output entails. The description adds no value beyond the minimal statement of purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Performs full code completion.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 5 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, or parameters, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about any parameters, such as what 'sourceUrl', 'source', 'line', 'column', or 'patternKey' represent or how they should be used. This leaves all parameters completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Performs full code completion' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'codeCompletionFull' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what distinguishes 'full' code completion from the sibling tool 'codeCompletion' or what resources it acts upon, leaving the purpose vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling 'codeCompletion' tool. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to determine appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'create' without mentioning permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with 7 parameters, as it omits critical operational details like whether creation is immediate, reversible, or requires specific authorization.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its minimal content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification rather than brevity in a helpful sense.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks usage guidelines, parameter explanations, behavioral context, and output details, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in a server with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters like 'objtype', 'name', or 'parentPath', failing to compensate for the coverage gap. For a tool with 7 parameters, this leaves the agent guessing about their meanings and required formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new ABAP object' restates the tool name 'createObject' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'ABAP object' but lacks detail on what an ABAP object entails or how it differs from siblings like 'createTransport' or 'createAtcRun', offering only basic purpose without meaningful differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'createTransport' and 'createAtcRun', the description fails to indicate context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Deletes breakpoints' implies a destructive mutation, but provides no information about permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated debugging state, error conditions, or response format. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this complete lack of behavioral context is inadequate and potentially misleading about the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to provide necessary context that would help an agent understand when and how to use the tool. True conciseness balances brevity with completeness - here the extreme brevity comes at the cost of leaving critical information gaps that would require the agent to make assumptions or trial-and-error invocations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive debugging tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful deletion, what errors might occur, how breakpoints are identified, or the debugging context required. The agent would have insufficient information to use this tool correctly without resorting to experimentation or external documentation, creating significant risk for incorrect usage in a debugging environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 6 parameters documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description doesn't compensate or add value, but doesn't need to since the schema already provides complete parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deletes breakpoints' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'debuggerDeleteBreakpoints'. It provides the verb 'deletes' and resource 'breakpoints', but doesn't specify scope (e.g., all breakpoints, specific ones), context (debugging session), or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' or 'debuggerDeleteListener'. This minimal statement fails to differentiate the tool's specific purpose within the debugging context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must have active debugging session), when it's appropriate (e.g., to clean up after debugging), or what happens if used incorrectly. With sibling tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' and 'debuggerDeleteListener' in the same domain, the lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about the appropriate context for this deletion operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Retrieves' suggests a read-only operation, but there's no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, error conditions, or what format the fix proposals come in. For a tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, this leaves the agent with critical knowledge gaps about how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at just two words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure structural perspective it contains no wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. Every word technically serves a purpose, even if that purpose is insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 required parameters), complete lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It provides no meaningful context about what the tool does, how to use it, what the parameters mean, or what to expect in return. This leaves the agent unable to effectively select or invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 required parameters (url, source, line, column) have any documentation in the schema. The description provides zero information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they relate to retrieving fix proposals. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about how to properly invoke the tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves fix proposals' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'fixProposals' with a generic verb. It doesn't specify what kind of fix proposals, for what system, or what the retrieval actually entails. While it does include a verb ('Retrieves'), it lacks any meaningful differentiation from sibling tools or specificity about the resource being accessed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools like 'fixEdits' or 'atcExemptProposal' that might handle related functionality. The agent receives no help in determining appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but fails to describe permissions, rate limits, side effects, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with three required parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its minimal content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks purpose differentiation, usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter explanations, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters 'url', 'type', and 'name' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, their meanings, formats, or constraints. This leaves the agent guessing about required inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves fragment mappings' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'fragmentMappings' without adding meaningful context. It specifies a verb ('Retrieves') but lacks details on what fragment mappings are, what resource they relate to, or how they differ from sibling tools like 'objectStructure' or 'featureDetails'. This provides minimal differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'objectStructure', 'featureDetails', 'findDefinition'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has side effects, what format the results come in, or any rate limits or constraints. The phrase 'search help' is ambiguous and provides no behavioral context about what the tool actually does or returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just 4 words - but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it doesn't waste words, it also doesn't provide enough information to be genuinely helpful. The single sentence structure is simple but fails to convey essential information about the tool's purpose and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, or how it differs from alternatives. The combination of vague purpose, missing behavioral context, and lack of differentiation from similar tools makes this description insufficient for an AI agent to effectively use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('type' and 'name') having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already documented in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Performs a package search help' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'packageSearchHelp' with minimal added meaning. It uses the vague term 'search help' without clarifying what this operation actually does or what resource it acts upon. While it includes a verb ('Performs'), it lacks specificity about what a 'package search help' entails or how it differs from other search-related tools like 'searchObject' or 'findDefinition'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any specific context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. Given the many sibling tools (over 100), including several search-related ones like 'searchObject', 'findDefinition', and 'findCollectionByUrl', the absence of any differentiation makes it impossible for an AI agent to understand when this particular package search tool should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('publishes') without explaining what publishing entails—e.g., whether it makes the binding publicly available, requires specific permissions, is reversible, has side effects, or involves rate limits. This lack of detail leaves the agent unaware of critical operational risks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly concise to the point of under-specification—a single sentence that fails to convey necessary information. While it avoids verbosity, it lacks front-loaded critical details and does not earn its place by adding value, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (likely a mutation affecting system state), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address what happens after publishing, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool safely or effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'name' and 'version' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Publishes a service binding' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'publishServiceBinding' without specifying what 'publish' means in this context or what a 'service binding' is. It fails to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'unPublishServiceBinding', leaving the purpose vague and unhelpful for an AI agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as its sibling 'unPublishServiceBinding' or other related tools like 'createObject' or 'activateObjects'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, making it misleadingly simplistic for a tool that likely involves system changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Runs a class' is vague and does not reveal any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or destructive, what permissions are required, if it has side effects, rate limits, or what the output might look like. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, 'Runs a class.', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified, but based solely on structure and brevity, it earns full marks for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (likely involving execution or processing), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It does not provide enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect, making it insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'className' with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description 'Runs a class' does not add any meaning about the parameter, such as what 'className' represents (e.g., a class name, identifier, or path), its format, or examples. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Runs a class' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'runClass' without adding meaningful specificity. It lacks details about what 'running' entails (e.g., executing code, starting a process, or performing a test) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'unitTestRun' or 'runQuery', which might involve similar actions on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'unitTestRun' and 'runQuery' present, there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, side effects, or response format. The description adds no value beyond the basic action stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the minimal information conveyed, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a sibling tool ('usageReferences') with a similar name, the description is inadequate. It fails to clarify the tool's role, parameters, or behavior, making it incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the 'references' parameter. It does not explain what 'references' are, their format, or how they should be specified, leaving the parameter undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves usage reference snippets' restates the tool name 'usageReferenceSnippets' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies a verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('usage reference snippets'), but lacks detail on what 'usage reference snippets' are or how they differ from the sibling tool 'usageReferences'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'usageReferences' or other retrieval tools. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Performs ADT discovery' offers no information on what the tool does operationally—whether it's a read-only scan, a configuration change, or something else. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or output format, leaving the agent with no actionable behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description 'Performs ADT discovery' is overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it uses only three words, it fails to convey essential information, making it inefficient rather than succinct. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one provides minimal value, indicating poor structure for tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what ADT discovery entails, what results to expect, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool in a rich ecosystem, this minimal description leaves critical gaps in understanding its role and behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, meaning the input schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description does not add parameter semantics, but since no parameters exist, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter aspect completely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Performs ADT discovery' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'adtDiscovery' with minimal elaboration. While it indicates the tool relates to ADT (presumably ABAP Development Tools) discovery, it lacks specificity about what resources or operations are involved, making the purpose vague and indistinguishable from sibling tools like 'adtCoreDiscovery'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'adtCoreDiscovery' present, there is no differentiation to help an agent choose appropriately. This absence of usage instructions is misleading in a complex environment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Evaluates' suggests a read-only analysis, but the description doesn't confirm if this is safe (non-destructive), what permissions might be required, or what the evaluation entails (e.g., checking feasibility, showing previews). It lacks details on rate limits, side effects, or output format, leaving critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly concise to the point of under-specification—a single phrase that fails to convey necessary information. While brief, it lacks front-loaded clarity and doesn't earn its place by adding value; it merely restates the tool name without elaboration. This isn't effective conciseness but rather insufficient detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a rename evaluation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'evaluates' means, what the output might include (e.g., success indicators, warnings), or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that likely assesses code changes, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all four parameters (uri, line, startColumn, endColumn). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these parameters define the rename target or their interrelationships. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Evaluates a rename refactoring' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'renameEvaluate' without specifying what 'evaluates' means in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'renameExecute' or 'renamePreview', nor does it clarify what resource is being evaluated (e.g., code changes, feasibility, impact). The purpose remains vague beyond the basic action implied by the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'renameExecute' or 'renamePreview', nor does it specify prerequisites, context (e.g., before executing a rename), or exclusions. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine when this tool is appropriate compared to other rename-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's resource-intensive, what format the results come in, or any error conditions. The description provides no behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by 'Find'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Find') and target ('symbol references'). While severely under-specified, it achieves maximum efficiency in word economy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does in practical terms, how to use the parameters, what results to expect, or how it differs from similar tools. For a search/reference tool in a development context, this leaves the agent guessing about fundamental usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It doesn't explain what 'url', 'line', or 'column' parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they affect the search. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's minimally inferable from parameter names, leaving critical usage details undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find symbol references' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'usageReferences'. It doesn't specify what kind of symbols (functions, variables, classes?), what context (source code, documentation?), or what 'references' means (calls, usages, definitions?). While it indicates a search/find action, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from similar tools like 'findDefinition' or 'findObjectPath'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'findDefinition', 'findObjectPath', 'searchObject', and 'usageReferenceSnippets', there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool's purpose or when it would be the appropriate choice. The description offers no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Runs unit tests' implies an execution action but reveals nothing about side effects (e.g., does it modify data, require authentication, have rate limits, or produce logs?), output format, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs operations with potential system impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two words, with no wasted verbiage. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification—it's too terse to be helpful, lacking necessary details. It's front-loaded but insufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of running unit tests (likely involving execution, output, and potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to address what the tool returns, how it behaves, or any contextual nuances, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('url' and 'flags'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Runs unit tests' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'unitTestRun'. It specifies the verb 'runs' and the resource 'unit tests', but lacks any detail about what kind of unit tests, in what context, or what the scope is. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'unitTestEvaluation' or 'runClass', leaving the purpose vague beyond the obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'unitTestEvaluation' or 'runClass' that might be related. This leaves the agent with no usage context beyond the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It does not mention whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, if it has side effects, rate limits, or what the output looks like, leaving critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Creates an ATC run.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but per scoring rules, it earns full points for brevity and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an ATC run is, its purpose, or the outcome of creation, failing to provide necessary context for a tool that likely performs a write operation with three parameters, making it inadequate for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all parameters (variant, mainUrl, maxResults). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates an ATC run' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'createAtcRun' without adding specificity. It does not clarify what an 'ATC run' entails or distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'atcCheckVariant' or 'atcCustomizing', leaving the purpose vague beyond the basic verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, and does not reference sibling tools like 'atcCheckVariant' or 'atcWorklists' for differentiation, offering no usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action without details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or return format. 'Accesses' is ambiguous—it could imply read-only or mutation behavior, but this is not clarified, leaving the agent with insufficient information to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it lacks front-loaded critical information (e.g., purpose differentiation or behavioral context), which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with one parameter. It fails to explain what 'accesses' entails, the expected return values, or how it interacts with the DDIC repository, leaving significant gaps in understanding for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter documented as 'The path to the DDIC element.' The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, but since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Accesses the DDIC repository' restates the tool name 'ddicRepositoryAccess' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the resource (DDIC repository) but lacks a clear, specific verb beyond 'accesses', which is vague compared to sibling tools like 'ddicElement' or 'checkRepo' that suggest more concrete actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'ddicElement', 'findDefinition'), there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Sets breakpoints' implies a mutation operation, but it fails to describe critical aspects such as required permissions, whether breakpoints persist across sessions, error handling, or side effects. It also does not explain what happens when breakpoints are set (e.g., if execution pauses immediately). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, 'Sets breakpoints', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but per the scoring rules, it earns a high score for being tightly structured without unnecessary verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a debugging tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose in context, usage guidelines, behavioral details, or expected outcomes. For a mutation tool in a debugging suite, this minimal description fails to provide the necessary information for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 10 parameters documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'debuggingMode' and 'breakpoints' or providing examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets breakpoints' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('Sets') and resource ('breakpoints'), but lacks details about what breakpoints are, their purpose, or how they function in debugging. Compared to sibling tools like 'debuggerDeleteBreakpoints' or 'debuggerStep', it does not clearly differentiate its specific role in the debugging workflow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugging session), exclusions, or related tools like 'debuggerDeleteBreakpoints' or 'debuggerListen'. Without any context, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Sets trace parameters' implies a write/mutation operation, but provides no information about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing parameters, side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this description is completely inadequate in disclosing behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at just three words. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration or repetition. This is the definition of conciseness, even if the content is insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (implied by 'sets') with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling trace-related tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what trace parameters are, how they affect tracing behavior, what format the parameters should be in, or what the tool returns. For a tool that presumably configures system behavior, this level of documentation is dangerously insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'parameters' documented as 'The trace parameters.' The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets trace parameters' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'tracesSetParameters'. It specifies the verb 'sets' and resource 'trace parameters', but provides no additional clarity about what trace parameters are, what they control, or how they affect the system. This is a minimal restatement rather than a meaningful explanation of purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to traces (tracesCreateConfiguration, tracesDeleteConfiguration, tracesList, etc.), but the description offers no context about when this specific tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or what alternatives might be better for different scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Evaluates unit test results' gives no insight into what the tool actually does behaviorally—whether it analyzes test outcomes, generates reports, returns pass/fail status, or has side effects like logging. It lacks critical details such as output format, error handling, or any operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified—it lacks necessary detail for a tool with behavioral complexity. While not verbose, it fails to convey essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably processes test results. It doesn't cover what 'evaluation' means, what the output might be (e.g., a report, status code), or any behavioral traits. For a tool with potential complexity in test analysis, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('clas' and 'flags'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'evaluates' entails for these inputs or their interplay. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Evaluates unit test results' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'unitTestEvaluation'. It doesn't specify what 'evaluates' means in this context (analyzing, summarizing, validating?), nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'unitTestRun' or 'unitTestOccurrenceMarkers'. The purpose remains vague rather than specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., after running tests), or comparison to related tools like 'unitTestRun'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It does not indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool named 'request', which implies a mutation, this lack of transparency is critical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with no wasted verbiage. It is front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. Every word serves a purpose, even if insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 a single but nested parameter, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, expected inputs beyond the schema, or what the request entails. Given the complexity implied by 'ATC exemption' and the lack of structured data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'proposal' described as 'The ATC exemption proposal'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not elaborate on what constitutes a proposal or its structure. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Requests an ATC exemption' restates the tool name 'atcRequestExemption' almost verbatim, making it tautological. It lacks specificity about what an ATC exemption entails or what resource it acts upon, beyond the generic verb 'requests'. Compared to sibling tools like 'atcExemptProposal' or 'atcChangeContact', it fails to distinguish its unique function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'atcExemptProposal' or 'atcCustomizing' that might be related. This leaves the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Attaches the debugger' implies a state-changing operation that likely initiates debugging, but it doesn't describe what happens upon attachment (e.g., whether it pauses execution, starts monitoring, or requires specific permissions), potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that appears to control debugging sessions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence 'Attaches the debugger.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions. In terms of structure and economy of language, it earns full marks for being direct and avoiding redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a debugger attachment tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, usage context, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer. While the schema covers parameters, the lack of behavioral and contextual information makes this description insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented in the input schema (debuggingMode, debuggeeId, user, dynproDebugging). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what values debuggingMode accepts, what debuggeeId refers to, or how user authentication works. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Attaches the debugger' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'debuggerAttach' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what resource the debugger attaches to, what the outcome is, or how this differs from sibling debugger tools like debuggerListen or debuggerSetBreakpoints. While the verb 'attaches' is clear, the lack of resource and differentiation makes this minimally informative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debuggee), exclusions, or relationships to other debugger tools in the sibling list. Without any context about appropriate scenarios or comparisons to tools like debuggerListen or debuggerStep, the agent has no basis for making an informed selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Performs a debugger step' reveals nothing about what the tool actually does behaviorally: whether it advances execution, changes program state, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens after stepping. For a tool that likely modifies debugger state, this complete lack of behavioral information is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise with a single sentence that contains no wasted words. While it's under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word in 'Performs a debugger step' serves a purpose, making it technically efficient despite its informational deficiencies.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of debugger operations and the complete lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. A debugger step tool likely has important behavioral characteristics (execution advancement, state changes, interaction with breakpoints) that aren't addressed. The description doesn't explain what happens after stepping or how this integrates with other debugger tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description. The description doesn't compensate or add value, but doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Performs a debugger step' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'debuggerStep' without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what a debugger step actually does (e.g., step into, step over, step out) or what resource it operates on (e.g., debugger session, execution context). While it mentions 'debugger' which provides some context, it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling debugger tools like debuggerAttach, debuggerSetBreakpoints, or debuggerVariables.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an active debugger session), appropriate contexts, or relationships to other debugger tools. With multiple sibling debugger tools available, this lack of differentiation makes it impossible for an agent to determine when debuggerStep is the correct choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'retrieves a list' without any information about permissions required, rate limits, side effects, response format, pagination, or what constitutes a 'dump'. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide the behavioral context an agent needs to use it effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at just four words. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the description itself is perfectly structured and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this tool definition is incomplete for practical use. The agent knows it retrieves a list of something called 'dumps' with an optional filter, but has no information about what dumps are, what domain they belong to, what the response looks like, or when to use this versus other tools. For a tool in a complex environment with over 100 siblings, this description provides insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions nothing about parameters. However, the input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single optional parameter 'query' documented as 'An optional query string to filter the dumps.' Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate even though the description adds no parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves a list of dumps' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'dumps' with a generic verb. It doesn't specify what kind of dumps (e.g., database dumps, debug dumps, system dumps) or what resource domain they belong to. While it includes a verb ('retrieves'), it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools that might also retrieve lists of things.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or constraints. Given the extensive list of sibling tools (over 100), this lack of guidance is particularly problematic as the agent has no way to determine when 'dumps' is the appropriate tool versus other list-retrieval or query tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. 'Executes' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this modifies source code irreversibly, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. It lacks critical context for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action, though its brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a code refactoring execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain behavioral traits, usage context, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how and when to invoke it safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. However, with 100% schema description coverage (the 'refactoring' parameter is documented as 'The refactoring object'), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional details about the refactoring object's structure or requirements, but it doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Executes an extract method refactoring' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'extractMethodExecute'. While it specifies the action ('executes') and domain ('extract method refactoring'), it doesn't clarify what this actually does in practice or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'extractMethodEvaluate' and 'extractMethodPreview' that likely handle related aspects of the same refactoring process.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid refactoring object from evaluation/preview steps), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'extractMethodEvaluate' (likely for assessment) or 'extractMethodPreview' (likely for simulation), leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'find path' without explaining what the tool does beyond that—such as whether it returns a string, an error if not found, or any side effects like logging or caching. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just four words: 'Find path for an object'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a path string, error details), how it behaves, or its context among sibling tools. For a tool with one parameter but no other structured information, more descriptive content is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'objectUrl' clearly documented as 'URL of the object to find path for'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately explains the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find path for an object' restates the tool name 'findObjectPath' in slightly different wording, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'find' and resource 'path for an object', but lacks specificity about what type of object or path (e.g., file system path, URL path, repository path), and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'findCollectionByUrl' or 'findDefinition'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'findCollectionByUrl', 'findDefinition'), there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Sets' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the expected response looks like. For a configuration-setting tool with 3 required parameters, this lack of behavioral context is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words: 'Sets transport configurations.' While it's under-specified in terms of content, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration or repetition. The description is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a configuration-setting operation with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what transport configurations are, what the expected outcome is, error conditions, or how this differs from related tools. The agent would have to rely heavily on the parameter schema alone without adequate contextual guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (uri, etag, config) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets transport configurations' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'setTransportsConfig'. It specifies the verb 'sets' and resource 'transport configurations', but doesn't explain what transport configurations are or what specific aspects are being configured. Compared to sibling tools like 'createTransportsConfig' and 'getTransportConfiguration', it fails to distinguish its purpose beyond the basic name meaning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple related sibling tools including 'createTransportsConfig', 'getTransportConfiguration', 'hasTransportConfig', and 'transportConfigurations', but the description doesn't indicate whether this is for updating existing configurations, initial setup, or specific scenarios. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Deletes') without addressing critical aspects like permissions required, whether the deletion is reversible, side effects, error conditions, or what happens upon success. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, though it lacks depth, making it appropriately concise for its limited content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain behavioral traits, usage context, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'transportNumber' clearly documented. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but the schema provides sufficient baseline information, justifying a score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deletes a transport' restates the tool name 'transportDelete' (tautology) without specifying what a 'transport' is or providing any distinguishing context. It uses a clear verb ('Deletes') but lacks resource specificity beyond the generic term 'transport', failing to differentiate from sibling tools like 'deleteObject' or 'createTransport'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, consequences, or related tools (e.g., 'transportRelease', 'transportInfo'), leaving the agent with no context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Releases a transport' implies a mutation operation but fails to specify permissions, side effects, or outcomes. It does not mention what 'releasing' does (e.g., unlocks, finalizes, or deletes), potential risks like data loss, or response behavior, leaving critical gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Releases a transport.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it lacks substance, it is structurally efficient and avoids unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'releasing' means, the consequences, or how it interacts with other tools, failing to provide the necessary context for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter details like 'transportNumber' and optional flags for ignoring locks and ATC checks. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 by not detracting from the well-documented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Releases a transport' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'transportRelease' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'releases' and resource 'transport' but lacks any detail about what 'releasing' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'transportDelete' or 'createTransport', leaving the purpose vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit or implied instructions on prerequisites, conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools, such as when to choose 'transportRelease' over 'transportDelete' or 'transportInfo', making it misleadingly incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Loads object types' gives no insight into whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are needed, how it behaves (e.g., caching, side effects), or what the output entails. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, 'Loads object types.', which is appropriately sized for a simple tool. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it lacks depth. There's no wasted verbiage, earning a high score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'loading' entails (e.g., fetching, caching, initializing) or what 'object types' are in this system context. With no annotations to fill gaps, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't incorrectly imply any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't conflict with the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Loads object types' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'loadTypes' without adding meaningful clarification. It specifies the verb 'loads' and resource 'object types', but doesn't explain what 'loads' means in this context or what 'object types' refers to, making it vague rather than specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'objectTypes' and 'adtDiscovery' that might relate to object types, there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search for objects' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is a simple lookup or a complex search, what permissions are needed, if there are rate limits, or what the output format might be. The description is too vague to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it's overly terse to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary detail. It earns a 4 for brevity but loses points for not providing enough substance to be truly helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'objects' refer to in this context, how results are returned, or any limitations. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'query', 'objType', and 'max'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid queries or object types. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search for objects' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'searchObject' without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what types of objects are being searched, what system or context this operates in, or how it differs from other search-related tools like 'findObjectPath' or 'findDefinition' among the siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that might involve searching or finding objects (e.g., 'findObjectPath', 'findDefinition'), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('unlock') but fails to describe critical traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, error conditions, or what happens if the lock is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it lacks necessary context for a mutation tool, slightly reducing its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the unlock process, success/failure outcomes, or system implications, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('objectUrl' and 'lockHandle'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unlock an object' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'unLock'. It specifies a verb ('unlock') and resource ('object'), but provides no additional context about what type of object or system is involved, making it vague and minimally informative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a previous lock operation), exclusions, or related tools like 'lock' from the sibling list, leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide adequate behavioral context, leaving the agent uncertain about how the tool behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single phrase with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. While brevity can lead to underspecification, in terms of structure and efficiency, this description earns full marks for being direct and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'class includes structure' (likely a technical ABAP concept), no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'includes structure' entails, how results are formatted, or differentiate from similar tools. For a tool that might return complex data, this lack of context makes it inadequate for informed use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'clas' documented as 'The class name'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without needing extra detail from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get class includes structure' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'classIncludes' with minimal added meaning. While it indicates a retrieval action ('Get') and a resource ('class includes structure'), it doesn't specify what 'includes structure' means or how it differs from similar tools like 'classComponents' or 'objectStructure' in the sibling list. This leaves the purpose vague and undifferentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools like 'classComponents' and 'objectStructure' that might overlap, the agent has no basis for selecting this tool appropriately. This lack of usage context is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Listens for debugging events' implies an ongoing monitoring or subscription behavior, but doesn't specify whether this is a blocking call, how events are delivered, what happens on conflicts (though parameters suggest conflict handling), or any rate limits/permissions. The description fails to explain the operational behavior beyond the basic verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. While this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, every word earns its place by conveying the core action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and efficient in its minimalism.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters (4 required), no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in the debugging domain, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it differs from similar tools, what 'listening' means operationally, or provide any context about the debugging system. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based on the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already documented in the schema. With 6 parameters fully described in the schema, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Listens for debugging events' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'debuggerListen'. It provides no specific information about what kind of debugging events, what 'listening' entails operationally, or what distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'debuggerAttach' or 'debuggerListeners'. The purpose remains vague beyond the obvious implication from the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple debugging-related sibling tools (debuggerAttach, debuggerDeleteListener, debuggerListeners, debuggerSetBreakpoints, etc.), there's no indication of this tool's specific role, prerequisites, or appropriate context. The agent receives no usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Saves' implies a write operation, but it does not specify whether this requires authentication, affects other users, has side effects, or how settings are persisted (e.g., locally vs. globally). The description lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's action without unnecessary elaboration, which is efficient for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'saves' entails (e.g., success response, error conditions, or persistence details), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and outcomes. This is inadequate given the complexity implied by a write operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'settings' documented as 'The debugger settings.' The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Saves debugger settings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'debuggerSaveSettings'. It specifies the verb 'saves' and resource 'debugger settings', but lacks any differentiation from sibling tools or details about what 'saves' entails (e.g., persistence scope, format). This makes it vague and minimally informative beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context (e.g., after configuring settings), or sibling tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' or 'debuggerSetVariableValue' that might be related. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. It states the tool 'evaluates', implying a read-only or analysis operation, but does not clarify if it modifies data, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or details output behavior (e.g., returns evaluation results or errors). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate, though not contradictory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, 'Evaluates an extract method refactoring.', which is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded critical details (e.g., purpose differentiation or usage context), making it feel sparse rather than optimally structured. While not verbose, it fails to earn its place by adding sufficient value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving refactoring evaluation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the evaluation entails, what results to expect, or how it fits into a workflow with sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'uri' and 'range' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, such as format examples or constraints beyond the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without need for description enhancement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Evaluates an extract method refactoring' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'extractMethodEvaluate' with minimal added value. It specifies the verb 'evaluates' and the resource 'extract method refactoring', but lacks specificity about what evaluation entails (e.g., feasibility, impact, or preview) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'extractMethodExecute' or 'extractMethodPreview', leaving the agent unclear about distinct purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., before executing a refactoring), or refer to sibling tools like 'extractMethodExecute' or 'extractMethodPreview' for comparison. This absence leaves the agent without explicit or implied direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Sets' implies a mutation operation, but the description fails to disclose critical traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what the default settings are, or any side effects. It adds no context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. It is front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of detail. Every part of the sentence directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, failing to compensate for the absence of structured data. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for a tool that modifies settings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('indent' and 'style'). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't explain how these parameters interact, what values 'style' might accept, or their effects on output. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets the pretty printer settings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('Sets') and resource ('pretty printer settings'), but lacks any detail about what these settings control or their impact, making it vague. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'prettyPrinter' or 'prettyPrinterSetting', leaving the purpose unclear beyond the basic action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools such as 'prettyPrinter' or 'prettyPrinterSetting' that might be related. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Creates' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens on success/failure, if it's idempotent, or what side effects occur. The description lacks essential behavioral context for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a trace configuration is, what format the 'config' parameter should use, what happens after creation, or how this integrates with other trace operations. The context is incomplete for proper tool understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with a single parameter 'config' described as 'The trace configuration.' The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates a trace configuration' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'tracesCreateConfiguration'. It doesn't specify what a trace configuration is, what resources it affects, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'tracesDeleteConfiguration' or 'tracesSetParameters'. The purpose is stated but lacks meaningful differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to traces (tracesDeleteConfiguration, tracesSetParameters, tracesList, etc.), but the description offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or distinctions from other trace-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or return format. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters, as it doesn't disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its minimal content, though this conciseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter-heavy tool (4 params), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a transport reference is, how it's used, or what the return value entails, making it insufficient for effective tool invocation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter relationships or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves a transport reference' restates the tool name 'transportReference' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies a verb ('retrieves') and resource ('transport reference') but lacks detail on what a transport reference is or how it differs from sibling tools like 'transportInfo' or 'createTransport', leaving purpose vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'transportInfo', 'createTransport', and 'transportsByConfig', the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous and unhelpful for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('retrieves') without detailing what a reentrance ticket is used for, whether it's a read-only operation, if it has side effects (e.g., session creation), or any rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently states the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and the vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a reentrance ticket is, its role in the system (e.g., related to sessions or authentication), or what the retrieval entails, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's context and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, earning a baseline score of 4 as it avoids redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves a reentrance ticket' restates the tool name 'reentranceTicket' with a generic verb ('retrieves'), making it tautological. It doesn't specify what a 'reentrance ticket' is or what resource it operates on, leaving the purpose vague and indistinguishable from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context, prerequisites, or any mention of related tools (e.g., login, session management tools like dropSession), making it unclear in what scenarios 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Sets source code', implying a write/mutation operation, but fails to describe permissions needed, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a write operation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context on behavior, parameters, or results, making it inadequate for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what 'objectSourceUrl', 'source', 'lockHandle', or 'transport' mean, their formats, or how they interact, leaving parameters completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and the resource ('source code for ABAP objects'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getObjectSource' or 'createObject', which would require more specificity to achieve a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'getObjectSource' for reading or 'createObject' for creation. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a syntax check but doesn't describe what that entails (e.g., returns errors/warnings, requires specific permissions, has side effects like logging). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations and schema descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the syntax check output, parameter interactions, or behavioral details, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'source code', which loosely relates to the 'code' parameter, but doesn't explain the other 4 optional parameters (url, mainUrl, mainProgram, version) or their roles in the syntax check process. This leaves most parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Perform ABAP syntax check with source code' clearly states the action (syntax check) and resource (ABAP source code), but it's vague about scope and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl' and 'syntaxCheckTypes'. It doesn't specify what constitutes a 'syntax check' (e.g., validation, error reporting).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl' or 'syntaxCheckTypes'. The description implies usage for ABAP code syntax checking but doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts (e.g., development vs. testing).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('retrieves') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this minimal description is insufficient to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It states the purpose but omits critical details like parameter meanings, behavioral traits, and usage context. In a server with 100+ sibling tools, this minimal description doesn't provide enough information for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters, the description adds no semantic information about parameters like 'objectUri', 'body', 'line', 'column', or 'language'. It doesn't explain what these inputs represent or how they affect the retrieval, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation and leaving parameters largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves ABAP documentation' clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('ABAP documentation'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'findDefinition' or 'ddicElement' that might also retrieve documentation-related information, leaving room for ambiguity in a crowded toolset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'ddicElement' that could overlap in functionality, there's no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'abapDocumentation', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Performs ADT core discovery' but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, if it has side effects, what permissions are required, or how results are returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point, though the content itself is lacking in detail. The structure is front-loaded and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'ADT core discovery' entails, what the tool returns, or any behavioral context. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description fails to provide sufficient information for an agent to understand its function and use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the input schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids discussing inputs. A baseline of 4 is warranted since no parameters exist to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Performs ADT core discovery' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'adtCoreDiscovery' without providing meaningful context about what 'ADT core discovery' actually does. It lacks a specific verb and resource, making it unclear whether this discovers system components, configurations, or something else. While it distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'core' (vs. 'adtDiscovery'), the purpose remains vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'adtDiscovery' or other sibling tools. There is no mention of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage based on the tool name alone, which is insufficient for informed decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves a list' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the list returns, if there are rate limits, or how conflicts are handled (despite the checkConflict parameter). The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, making it somewhat under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters (4 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'debugger listeners' are, what the returned list contains, how parameters interact, or when conflicts might occur. The minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how debuggingMode, terminalId, ideId, and user work together) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves a list of debugger listeners' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (debugger listeners), but it's somewhat vague about what 'debugger listeners' actually are in this context. It distinguishes from non-debugger siblings but doesn't differentiate from similar debugger tools like 'debuggerListen' or 'debuggerDeleteListener'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several related debugger tools (debuggerListen, debuggerDeleteListener, debuggerAttach, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific 'listeners' retrieval is appropriate versus other debugger operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'previews', implying a read-only or simulation operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is (since no output schema exists), or any side effects like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it could be more front-loaded with additional context to improve clarity, but it's structurally sound.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a refactoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'preview' entails, what the expected return values are, or how it fits into a larger workflow with sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'proposal' parameter fully documented as 'The extract method proposal.' The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as explaining the format or content of a proposal. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Previews an extract method refactoring' clearly states the action (preview) and the operation (extract method refactoring), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what resource or scope it operates on (e.g., code in a file or repository), and it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'extractMethodEvaluate' or 'extractMethodExecute', making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'extractMethodEvaluate' or 'extractMethodExecute'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical workflows, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'retrieves' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' entail (e.g., format, scope). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and clear, though slightly under-specified given the lack of detail. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple but vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, how to interpret results, or behavioral aspects, leaving gaps for the agent to infer usage in a complex server with many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'title' documented as 'The title of the feature.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves details for a given feature' clearly states the action (retrieves) and target (feature details), but it's vague about what 'details' include and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'collectionFeatureDetails' or 'findDefinition' that might serve similar purposes. It's adequate but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'collectionFeatureDetails', 'findDefinition'), the description doesn't indicate context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Retrieves' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or return format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as by clarifying 'main programs'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'main programs' are, what data is returned, or how to interpret results. For a retrieval tool in a complex system with many siblings, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'includeUrl' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as URL format examples or what constitutes a valid 'include'. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Retrieves') and target ('main programs'), but is vague about what 'main programs' are and what 'include' refers to. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'classIncludes' or 'getObjectSource' that might retrieve related data. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for retrieving object data (e.g., 'classIncludes', 'getObjectSource', 'objectStructure'), the description offers no context on its specific use case, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, error handling, or practical usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool effectively in a complex environment with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the 'objectUrl' parameter at all. It fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, such as what format the URL should be in, examples, or constraints, which is insufficient given the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get registration information for an ABAP object', which clearly indicates it retrieves data about object registration. However, it lacks specificity about what 'registration information' entails (e.g., metadata, status, ownership) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'objectStructure' or 'objectTypes', making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'findObjectPath', 'getObjectSource'), there is no indication of how this tool fits into workflows or when it should be preferred over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool formats code but does not describe what 'pretty printer' entails (e.g., indentation, line breaks), whether it modifies the input in-place or returns formatted output, or any error handling for invalid code. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, such as hinting at the output or usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs code formatting. It does not explain what the formatted output looks like, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool with one parameter but no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more context to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'source' parameter clearly documented as 'The ABAP source code to format.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format requirements or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Formats ABAP code using the pretty printer,' which clearly indicates its purpose as a code formatting tool. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' or 'syntaxCheckCode,' leaving ambiguity about its specific role. The description is not tautological but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing valid ABAP code, or compare it to related tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' for validation or 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' for configuration. Without explicit usage context, the agent must 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'executes' a rename refactoring, implying a mutation or action, but fails to describe key traits like whether it requires specific permissions, is destructive, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. This is inadequate for a tool with potential behavioral implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Executes a rename refactoring.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, such as hinting at the context or outcome.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by a 'rename refactoring' tool (likely involving code changes), no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or expected results, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'refactoring' documented as 'The rename refactoring.' The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining the structure or content of the refactoring object. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'executes a rename refactoring', which provides a basic verb+resource combination ('execute' + 'rename refactoring'). However, it lacks specificity about what 'rename refactoring' entails (e.g., renaming code elements in a development environment) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'renameEvaluate' or 'renamePreview', making it vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to prefer 'renameEvaluate' or 'renamePreview' from the sibling list. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is for 'previewing', implying it is a read-only or simulation operation, but does not clarify if it requires specific permissions, what the preview output entails (e.g., changes, side effects), or any limitations like rate constraints, leaving key behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as by hinting at the preview's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a refactoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the preview shows (e.g., impacted code, conflicts), potential side effects, or how it integrates with sibling tools like renameExecute, making it incomplete for effective agent use in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'renameRefactoring' and 'transport' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a rename refactoring proposal contains or when to use the optional transport parameter, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'previews a rename refactoring', which clearly indicates its purpose as a preview operation for refactoring. However, it lacks specificity about what is being renamed (e.g., code elements, files, or objects) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like renameEvaluate or renameExecute, making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a rename refactoring proposal first, or compare it to related tools like renameEvaluate (which might assess feasibility) or renameExecute (which performs the actual rename), leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Perform ABAP syntax check', which implies a read-only analysis, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies data, requires authentication, has side effects, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it highly concise and well-structured for its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (syntax checking with a specific parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a CDS URL is, the tool's behavior, or expected results, making it inadequate for effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't add any semantic details about 'cdsUrl' (e.g., what it represents, format, or examples). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter meaning unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Perform ABAP syntax check') and mentions the resource type ('with CDS URL'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what a CDS URL is or how this differs from sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' and 'syntaxCheckTypes', leaving the distinction unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'syntaxCheckTypes'. The description implies it's for syntax checking with a CDS URL, but without context on what a CDS URL is or when it's applicable, usage remains ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), which suggests it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., structured data or raw text). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more specific. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error handling, and usage context, which are crucial for an AI agent to invoke this tool correctly. It's minimally viable but leaves too many gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 (objSourceUrl, devClass, operation). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters interact or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get transport information for an object source' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('transport information'), but it's vague about what 'transport information' entails (e.g., status, details, configuration) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getTransportConfiguration' or 'transportsByConfig'. It's adequate but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'getTransportConfiguration' or 'transportReference'. The description implies a general lookup but doesn't specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' suggests a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format is. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more informative. The brevity is appropriate but borders on under-specification given the lack of other context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'transports' are, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits. For a retrieval tool with no structured output information, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (configUri and targets). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what a 'configuration URI' entails or how 'targets' affects the retrieval. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves transports by configuration' clearly states the action (retrieves) and target (transports), but it's vague about what 'transports' are in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'transportInfo', 'userTransports', or 'transportConfigurations'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about the resource scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid configUri), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'transportConfigurations' or 'getTransportConfiguration'. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions validation but does not specify outcomes (e.g., success/failure indicators, error formats), side effects, or performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (validation operation with one undocumented parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover parameter details, behavioral traits, or output expectations, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'options' of type string. The description does not explain what 'options' should contain (e.g., configuration details, object properties), failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation and leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool validates parameters for a new ABAP object, which clarifies its purpose as a validation operation. However, it is vague about what 'validate' entails (e.g., syntax, semantics, or constraints) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'checkRepo', which might perform similar checks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether it should be used before 'createObject', or how it differs from other validation-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Changes the contact', implying a mutation operation, but does not specify required permissions, whether the change is reversible, potential side effects, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, efficiently stating the tool's action and target. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values, which are critical for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage does not compensate for these gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for 'itemUri' and 'userId'. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the parameters, though the description could have added context like format examples or relationships between parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Changes') and target ('contact for an ATC finding'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'atcContactUri' or 'atcRequestExemption', leaving ambiguity about its specific role within the ATC context. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'atcContactUri' or 'atcRequestExemption'. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'retrieves information,' implying a read-only operation, but fails to detail aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what information is retrieved, the response format, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more context to compensate, but it falls short.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'variant' parameter clearly documented as 'The name of the ATC check variant.' The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints, but the schema provides adequate baseline information, justifying a score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'retrieves information about an ATC check variant,' which clearly indicates its purpose as a read operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'atcCustomizing' or 'atcWorklists,' leaving ambiguity about what specific information is retrieved or how it differs from other ATC-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'atcCustomizing,' 'atcWorklists'), the description lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, offering only a basic functional statement without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'retrieves' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not address potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or the format of the retrieved proposal. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without any structural issues or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an ATC exemption proposal entails, the return format, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool with no structured data support, the description should provide more context to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'markerId' documented as 'The ID of the marker.' The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond this, such as explaining what a marker is or how to obtain its ID. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves an ATC exemption proposal' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (ATC exemption proposal), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what distinguishes this retrieval from other ATC-related tools like 'atcRequestExemption' or 'atcChangeContact', making it vague in the context of its siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a markerId, or differentiate it from other ATC tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify permissions, rate limits, data format, or potential side effects. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what ATC worklists are, what data they return, or how to interpret results, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all parameters clearly (e.g., runResultId as 'The ID of the ATC run result'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves ATC worklists' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (ATC worklists), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what ATC worklists contain or how they differ from other ATC-related tools like atcCheckVariant or atcCustomizing, making it somewhat vague in distinguishing from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., atcCheckVariant, atcCustomizing, atcExemptProposal), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List class components', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, output format, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase ('List class components') with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'components' entails, behavioral context, and usage guidelines, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke this tool in a complex environment with many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'url' documented as 'The URL of the class'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as URL format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List class components' clearly states the action (list) and resource (class components), but it's vague about what 'components' specifically means (e.g., methods, attributes, interfaces). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'classIncludes' or 'objectStructure', which might overlap in functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'classIncludes', 'objectStructure', and 'findDefinition', the description lacks context on prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'retrieves details', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves details') and resource ('collection feature'), making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'details' include, how results are structured, or any behavioral context needed for reliable use. For a retrieval tool with minimal structured data, the description should provide more context to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'url' documented as 'The URL of the collection feature'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as URL format or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without extra description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'retrieves details for a given collection feature', which clearly indicates a read operation on a specific resource type. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'featureDetails' or 'findCollectionByUrl', leaving ambiguity about scope or uniqueness. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity compared to alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'featureDetails' or 'findCollectionByUrl'. The description implies it operates on 'collection features' but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. This leaves the agent without context for selection among similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Creates', implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what the output might be. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies system state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose efficiently, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'test include' is, how it's used, what happens after creation, or potential errors, leaving critical gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately documents the inputs without needing extra details from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates a test include for a class' clearly states the action (creates) and target resource (test include for a class), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createObject' or 'createTransport', leaving ambiguity about when this specific tool is needed versus other creation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a lock handle), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'createObject', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create a new transport request' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the creation is reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (creating something) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like idempotency. For a tool that modifies state, more context is needed to use it effectively and safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify relationships between parameters or provide examples). This meets the baseline for adequate but unremarkable parameter documentation when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new transport request' clearly states the action (create) and resource (transport request), which is adequate for understanding the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'createTransportsConfig' or 'transportConfigurations', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific creation tool versus other transport-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'createTransportsConfig' and 'transportConfigurations' present, there's no indication of whether this tool is for initial setup, ongoing requests, or specific contexts. The lack of usage context makes it difficult for an agent to choose appropriately among related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, what format the information is returned in, or any error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of retrieving DDIC information with multiple optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'DDIC element' means in this context, what information is returned, or how the optional parameters affect the output, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all 4 parameters (path, getTargetForAssociation, getExtensionViews, getSecondaryObjects). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves information about a DDIC element' clearly states the action (retrieves) and target (DDIC element), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'objectStructure' that might also retrieve information about ABAP objects, leaving the specific scope of 'DDIC element' somewhat vague without further context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that might retrieve or query ABAP objects (e.g., 'findDefinition', 'objectStructure', 'searchObject'), there's no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Stops' implies a destructive action, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if the stop is immediate or graceful, what happens to associated data, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover what 'Stops' entails operationally, potential side effects, or return values. For a tool that likely mutates state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter documented (e.g., 'debuggingMode', 'terminalId'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how these parameters identify the listener or their formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Stops') and resource ('a debug listener'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'debuggerListeners' (which might list listeners) or 'debuggerListen' (which might start a listener), leaving the distinction vague. It's not tautological but lacks sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'debuggerListeners' and 'debuggerListen', there's no indication of prerequisites, timing, or exclusions. It's a basic statement without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions, rate limits, output format, or whether it requires an active debugger session. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool with potential runtime dependencies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'stack trace' returns (e.g., call hierarchy, line numbers), how it relates to other debugger tools, or any behavioral constraints, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively in a debugging context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter ('semanticURIs') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but minimal value addition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('Retrieves the debugger stack trace'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('debugger stack trace'), but does not differentiate it from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerGoToStack' or 'debuggerVariables', leaving ambiguity about what exactly a 'stack trace' entails in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple debugger-related sibling tools (e.g., 'debuggerAttach', 'debuggerStep'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'retrieves' implies a read operation, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's safe or has side effects, response format, or error conditions. For a debugger tool with no annotations, this minimal description is insufficient to inform the agent adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieves'), making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of debugger operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what variables are returned, their format, or how they relate to the 'parents' parameter. For a tool in a debugger context with siblings like 'debuggerChildVariables', more detail is needed to guide proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'parents' parameter documented as 'An array of parent variable names.' The description adds no additional parameter context beyond this. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves debugger variables' clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('debugger variables'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., current stack frame, all variables) or differentiate from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerChildVariables' or 'debuggerSetVariableValue', leaving ambiguity about what exactly is being retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugger session), context (e.g., after setting breakpoints), or how it differs from related tools like 'debuggerChildVariables' or 'debuggerStackTrace', leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lock an object' implies a mutation operation that likely restricts access, but it doesn't specify what locking entails (e.g., exclusive access, read-only lock), permissions required, side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with potential behavioral implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted language, making it efficient for quick understanding, though it may be overly terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a locking operation (likely a mutation with side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is incomplete. The description doesn't cover what 'lock' means, what happens after locking, or how to handle errors, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'objectUrl' and 'accessMode' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the purpose of 'accessMode' or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Lock an object' clearly states the action (lock) and target (object), but it's vague about what 'lock' means in this context (e.g., file lock, database lock, resource lock) and doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'unLock'. It avoids tautology by not restating the name/title, but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'unLock' or other sibling tools like 'createObject' or 'deleteObject'), nor does it mention prerequisites or context for locking. It's a bare statement with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without indicating whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or the format of returned data. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'structure details' returns, error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use this tool effectively in a complex environment with many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('objectUrl' and optional 'version'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get object structure details' clearly states the action (get) and target (object structure details), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'structure details' specifically entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getObjectSource' or 'objectTypes', which might retrieve related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone among many similar-sounding siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this minimal description fails to adequately inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. This meets the criteria for high conciseness and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of retrieving revisions (which may involve historical data or versioning), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'revisions' returns (e.g., list of changes, timestamps, authors) or any behavioral nuances. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('objectUrl' and optional 'clsInclude'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema already handles parameter documentation effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('retrieves') and target ('revisions for an object'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'revisions' entails (e.g., version history, change logs) and does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'getObjectSource' or 'objectStructure', which might also retrieve object-related data. This makes the purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after object creation or modification), or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'getObjectSource', 'objectTypes'), this lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('stages changes') but does not explain what 'staging' entails (e.g., adding files to the index, partial commits), potential side effects (e.g., overwriting previous stages), authentication needs (implied by 'user' and 'password' params but not described), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence: 'Stages changes in a Git repository.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundancy. This makes it highly efficient and easy to parse, earning a top score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of Git operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'staging' means in Git context, what the tool returns (e.g., success status, staged file list), or how it interacts with other Git tools in the sibling list. For a mutation tool with behavioral nuances, this minimal description fails to provide adequate context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'repo', 'user', and 'password'. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'staging' involves for these parameters or their interdependencies. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stages changes in a Git repository' clearly states the action (stages) and resource (changes in a Git repository), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'pushRepo' or 'gitPullRepo', which also operate on Git repositories, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus others.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., after making local changes, before committing), exclusions, or related tools like 'pushRepo' for pushing staged changes. This lack of context makes it unclear in what workflow step this tool fits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Deletes a trace' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on related data), or what the response looks like. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with 'Deletes a trace.', consisting of a single, direct sentence. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. This efficiency is appropriate for a simple tool, though it may sacrifice detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a deletion operation, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like confirmation of deletion, error handling, or return values. For a destructive tool with no structured safety hints, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'The ID of the trace.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deletes a trace' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (trace), but it's vague about what a 'trace' represents in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesList', 'tracesCreateConfiguration', or 'tracesDeleteConfiguration', leaving ambiguity about the specific resource type being deleted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'tracesList', 'tracesCreateConfiguration', and 'tracesDeleteConfiguration', there's no indication of prerequisites, when deletion is appropriate, or what happens after deletion (e.g., irreversible action). This lack of context makes it challenging for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieves' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether it's paginated or rate-limited, or what the output format is. For a list-retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'traces' are, how results are returned (e.g., list structure, pagination), or behavioral aspects like safety or performance. For a tool with potential complexity (implied by sibling tools like 'tracesCreateConfiguration'), more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter 'user' described as 'The user.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying what 'user' means (e.g., username, ID, filter criteria). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves a list of traces' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (traces), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'traces' are in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesListRequests' or 'tracesHitList', leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'tracesListRequests' and 'tracesHitList' that might serve similar or related purposes, the description offers no context for selection, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action ('retrieves') without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'trace request' is, how results are returned, or any operational constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'user' documented as 'The user.' The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as clarifying the user format or filtering behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('list of trace requests'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'trace requests' are or how this differs from sibling tools like 'tracesList' or 'tracesHitList', making it vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'tracesList' or 'tracesHitList'. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Retrieves' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if the trace ID is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with trace data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of trace-related operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'statements' are, the return format, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'id' documented as 'The ID of the trace' and 'options' as 'Options for retrieving statements.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or format details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves statements for a trace' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (statements for a trace), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'statements' are (e.g., log entries, SQL queries, code snippets) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesList' or 'tracesHitList', making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after identifying a trace), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone among many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieves' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, output format, or whether it's idempotent. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it safely.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a tool with 2 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'occurrence markers' are, how they're used, or what the return value looks like, leaving the AI agent with incomplete context for proper tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting both parameters ('url' and 'source') clearly. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining how these parameters interact or what 'occurrence markers' are in relation to them, but the schema provides adequate baseline information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves unit test occurrence markers' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (unit test occurrence markers), but it's vague about what 'occurrence markers' specifically are and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'unitTestEvaluation' or 'unitTestRun' that might handle related test operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a unit test must be run first, or how it relates to other test-related tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting dependent services), or what happens on success/failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, or error handling, which are critical for a mutation tool like this. The schema covers parameters well, but overall context is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('name' and 'version'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Unpublishes') and target ('a service binding'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what 'unpublishing' entails (e.g., making it unavailable, removing from a catalog) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'publishServiceBinding' beyond the opposite action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the binding must be published first), consequences, or related tools like 'publishServiceBinding' for context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Retrieves' which implies a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use parameters, or behavioral constraints, leaving too much undefined for a retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'source code for ABAP objects' but doesn't explain what 'objectSourceUrl' or 'options' parameters mean, their formats, or examples. This fails to add meaningful context beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and resource ('source code for ABAP objects'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'objectStructure' that might also retrieve ABAP-related information, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'searchObject' that might retrieve ABAP object details, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific retrieval operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('retrieves'), but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if URL is invalid), rate limits, or what happens if the configuration doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves') and resource ('transport configuration'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and resource but lacks context on usage, behavior, or differentiation from siblings. For a simple retrieval tool, it meets basic needs but doesn't provide enough guidance for optimal agent use in a crowded toolset.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter documented as 'The URL of the transport configuration.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as URL format examples or how it identifies the configuration. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'retrieves a specific transport configuration', which clearly indicates a read operation on a specific resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'transportConfigurations' (likely lists multiple) or 'hasTransportConfig' (likely checks existence), leaving the scope ambiguous. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'transportConfigurations' (plural) and 'hasTransportConfig', there's no indication of whether this is for single-item retrieval, existence checking, or bulk operations. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieves,' implying a read-only operation, but does not detail aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the retrieved data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence: 'Retrieves syntax check types.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient. While it could be more informative, it achieves conciseness without unnecessary elaboration, earning a high score for structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that retrieves data. It does not explain what 'syntax check types' are, the return format, or any behavioral traits. For a retrieval tool with no structured support, more context is needed to ensure proper usage and understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate here. However, it could have optionally clarified that no inputs are required, but this omission does not significantly impact usability, warranting a baseline score of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves syntax check types' clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('syntax check types'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'syntax check types' entails (e.g., categories, formats, or contexts) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl', leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, and it fails to reference related tools such as 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl', which could help in decision-making. This lack of direction may lead to misuse or confusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, what happens on activation, or any side effects like transport creation. 'Activate' implies a write operation but behavioral details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies the identification method. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that performs activation (likely a write operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'activate' means in this context, what the outcome is, or any important constraints. Given the complexity implied by parameters like 'preauditRequested', more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'name and URL' which maps to the two required parameters, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Activate') and target ('ABAP object'), and specifies the required identifiers ('using name and URL'). It distinguishes from generic 'activate' by specifying the identification method, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'activateObjects'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'activateObjects' or other activation-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'activate' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose what 'activation' entails (e.g., compilation, deployment, validation), whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, or any side effects. The mention of 'pre-audit checks' in the parameter hints at validation but isn't explained in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and good schema documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'activation' means in the ABAP context, what happens after activation, potential errors, or return values. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the format of the JSON array, what 'activation' means for the objects, or how the pre-audit parameter affects behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('activate') and target ('ABAP objects'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from the sibling 'activateByName' tool, which appears to serve a similar purpose but with different parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'activateByName' or other object management tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for activating ABAP objects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('retrieves') without detailing what the graph contains, how it's formatted, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the compatibility graph entails, its format, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not add parameter details, which is unnecessary here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as no parameters exist, and the schema covers this completely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'retrieves the ADT compatibility graph', which provides a clear verb ('retrieves') and resource ('ADT compatibility graph'). However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like 'adtDiscovery' or 'adtCoreDiscovery', which might have overlapping purposes, making the purpose somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to ADT and discovery, there is no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using this tool, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what format the definitions are returned in. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'annotation definitions' are, how they are returned, or any behavioral aspects. For a retrieval tool in a complex environment with many siblings, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it also doesn't provide any extra context about inputs (e.g., filtering options). Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the lack of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves annotation definitions' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (annotation definitions), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what annotation definitions are or how they differ from other data retrieval tools in the sibling list (like 'adtDiscovery' or 'objectTypes'), making it somewhat vague rather than specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for data retrieval (e.g., 'adtDiscovery', 'objectTypes'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what format the information is returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Retrieves ATC customizing information.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information. This makes it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by ATC (likely 'ABAP Test Cockpit') customizing and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'ATC customizing information' entails, how it's structured, or what the tool returns. For a retrieval tool in a technical domain with many sibling tools, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied as it handles the lack of parameters correctly without introducing confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'retrieves ATC customizing information', which provides a clear verb ('retrieves') and resource ('ATC customizing information'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'atcCheckVariant', 'atcChangeContact', or 'atcWorklists', which also appear to relate to ATC functionality. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this retrieval from others.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with multiple ATC-related sibling tools (e.g., 'atcCheckVariant', 'atcWorklists'), there's no indication of how this tool fits into the workflow or when it should be selected over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Retrieves' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide necessary operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieves') and resource ('details of a service binding'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, the format of the response, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('binding' and 'index') with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what constitutes a valid 'binding' object or when 'index' might be used. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('details of a service binding'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools that might also retrieve binding information, such as 'publishServiceBinding' or 'unPublishServiceBinding', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific retrieval tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools present (e.g., 'publishServiceBinding', 'unPublishServiceBinding'), there's no indication of whether this is for read-only details, pre/post conditions, or how it relates to other binding-related operations. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Creates', implying a write operation, but doesn't specify permissions, side effects, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'transport configurations' entail, how creation works, or what to expect in return, leaving too much ambiguity for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it also doesn't explain any implicit inputs or context, keeping it at a baseline 4 for zero-param tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates transport configurations' clearly states the action (creates) and resource (transport configurations), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createTransport' or 'setTransportsConfig', making it somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'createTransport' or 'setTransportsConfig'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does ('Retrieves'), not how it behaves. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'child variables' means in practice (e.g., scope, format, or limitations).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 1 parameter, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'child variables' are, how results are returned, or any behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 the 'parent' parameter as an optional array for the parent variable name. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and target ('child variables of a debugger variable'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerVariables' or 'debuggerStackTrace', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states the tool performs a write operation ('Sets'), implying mutation, but doesn't disclose critical details like required permissions, whether the variable must exist, side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation in a debugger context), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like success/error responses, dependencies on debugger state, or interaction with other debugger tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter names and descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, format constraints, or variable scope details).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and target ('value of a debugger variable'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'debuggerVariables' (which likely reads variables) by specifying a write operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other debugger tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugger session), exclusions, or related tools like 'debuggerVariables' for reading variables. Usage is implied only by the tool name and action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool deletes an object, implying a destructive operation, but fails to mention critical details such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like affecting dependencies. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without any fluff, earning the highest score for brevity and clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral implications, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all three parameters clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or usage examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Deletes') and resource ('an ABAP object from the system'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'deleteTransport' or 'tracesDelete', which also perform deletion operations on different resources, so it misses the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention prerequisites like needing a lock handle or transport request, nor does it compare to other deletion-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'retrieves a list' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering options, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'feeds' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'feeds' are, how they're structured, or what the return value looks like, leaving too much uncertainty for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate here, earning a baseline score above 3 due to the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves a list of feeds' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (feeds), but it's vague about what 'feeds' specifically refers to in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other list-retrieval siblings like 'gitRepos' or 'objectTypes', leaving the purpose somewhat ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'gitRepos', 'objectTypes'), the description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons, offering no help in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Creates' implies a write operation, it fails to mention critical details such as required permissions (e.g., admin rights), whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or if it interacts with remote servers. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Creates a new Git repository'), making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a Git repository creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), output format, or integration with sibling tools. This makes it incomplete for an agent to reliably use the tool in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters documented (e.g., 'packageName' as 'The name of the package'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'repourl' relates to 'branch') or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates a new Git repository' clearly states the verb ('Creates') and resource ('Git repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitPullRepo' or 'gitUnlinkRepo', which also operate on Git repositories but perform different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication, existing Git setup), when it's appropriate (e.g., initializing a new project), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'gitRepos' (which might list repositories) or 'createObject' (which creates other types of objects).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'retrieves information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs (e.g., for private repos), rate limits, error handling, or what specific information is returned. This is inadequate for a tool with potential external dependencies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that interacts with external systems (Git repositories), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, return values, error cases, or how it fits with siblings, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly in complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 (repourl, user, password) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool works with external repositories, which is minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves information') and resource ('about an external Git repository'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitRepos' or 'remoteRepoInfo', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for external repositories only (vs. local ones) or how it differs from 'gitRepos' or 'remoteRepoInfo' in the sibling list, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pulling changes but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, affects local state, has side effects, or what the expected output is. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies local repository state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, side effects, or return values, which are crucial for a Git operation tool. This leaves significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or use cases. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Pulls changes from a Git repository' clearly states the action (pull) and resource (Git repository), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pushRepo' or 'gitRepos', but it's specific enough to avoid vagueness or tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit instructions on prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'pushRepo' or 'gitCreateRepo', leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Unlinks' implies a mutation operation, but the description does not specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects local or remote data, or any side effects like cleanup. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and the tool's mutation nature ('Unlinks'), the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral aspects like safety, reversibility, or response format, leaving the agent with incomplete information for proper invocation in a Git context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'repoId' clearly documented as 'The ID of the repository.' The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing details, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Unlinks') and the resource ('a Git repository'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'gitCreateRepo' or 'gitPullRepo' beyond the basic action, missing explicit differentiation in scope or effect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to unlink versus delete or when it's appropriate in a workflow. It lacks context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' a list, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify if this requires specific permissions, what format the list returns (e.g., paginated, filtered), or any side effects like caching. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that might interact with system resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words: 'Get list of inactive objects'. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'inactive objects' in a system with many sibling tools (e.g., for ABAP or transport management), the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to provide enough information for an agent to understand the tool's role, output format, or integration with related operations like activation or deletion.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter details in the description. The description does not add or detract from parameter understanding, which aligns with the baseline for zero parameters, but it could briefly note the lack of filters or options for clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get list of inactive objects' clearly states the action (get/list) and resource (inactive objects), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what 'inactive objects' means in this context (e.g., inactive ABAP objects, database entries, or other resources) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'activateObjects' or 'deleteObject', leaving the scope ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify if this is for auditing, cleanup, or monitoring purposes, or how it relates to siblings such as 'activateObjects' or 'objectStructure'. The description offers only a basic function without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'checks' something, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, has side effects, or details about the return value (e.g., boolean, error handling). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, validation details) or any behavioral aspects like error conditions. For a tool that performs a check, more context is needed to guide proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'proposal' described as 'The ATC exemption proposal.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not elaborate on what constitutes a 'proposal message' or the validation criteria. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking if an object is a proposal message. It uses a specific verb ('checks') and identifies the resource ('proposal message'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'atcExemptProposal' or 'atcRequestExemption', which might be related, so it lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'retrieves' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'contents' actually means (e.g., metadata, source code, child nodes). The description is too minimal for a tool with 6 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space on redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'contents' includes, how results are structured, or provide any behavioral context. The single sentence leaves too many questions unanswered for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond implying a node retrieval context. This meets the baseline expectation when schema documentation is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('retrieves') and resource ('contents of a node in the ABAP repository tree'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tableContents' or 'objectStructure' that might also retrieve repository information, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'tableContents', 'objectStructure', and 'searchObject' that might retrieve similar repository data, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions for this specific retrieval operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the retrieval entails (e.g., list format, pagination). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool with 0 parameters, the description is minimal. It lacks context about what 'object types' are, how they are retrieved, or what the output looks like, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned if any implicit parameters exist (e.g., context or filters). Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Retrieves') and resource ('object types'), which provides a basic understanding of purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'object types' refers to in this context (e.g., ABAP objects, database objects) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'loadTypes' or 'ddicElement', making it vague in comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'loadTypes' or 'ddicElement'. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'pretty printer settings' entails (e.g., format, structure, or scope of the retrieved data), leaving the agent with insufficient context to understand the tool's behavior or output fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional value is required here, but it also doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves the pretty printer settings' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (pretty printer settings), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' beyond the verb difference, and 'pretty printer settings' could be more specific about what exactly is retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tool 'setPrettyPrinterSetting', there's an obvious read vs. write distinction, but the description doesn't mention this or any other usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Pushes changes' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements (e.g., credentials in 'user'/'password'), potential side effects (e.g., overwriting remote changes), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a Git push operation (mutation with authentication and potential conflicts), no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral details, the description is insufficient. It should cover prerequisites, side effects, or error scenarios to be complete for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 ('repo', 'staging', 'user', 'password'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'repo' or 'staging' objects contain or how they relate to the push operation, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Pushes changes') and target ('to a Git repository'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling Git tools like 'gitPullRepo' or 'stageRepo' in terms of when to use each, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gitPullRepo' or 'stageRepo', nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing staged changes first). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('retrieves information') but doesn't describe what information is returned, whether authentication is required (though parameters suggest optional credentials), potential rate limits, error conditions, or how it interacts with remote repositories. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's no redundancy or fluff, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of interacting with remote Git repositories, the description is incomplete. There's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain what information is retrieved (e.g., branches, commits, metadata). With no annotations and multiple sibling tools, more context is needed to understand how this tool fits into the ecosystem and what users can expect from its output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 ('repo', 'user', 'password') with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, format expectations for 'repo', or authentication context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('retrieves information') and resource ('about a remote Git repository'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitExternalRepoInfo' or 'gitRepos', but the specificity of 'remote Git repository' provides some implicit distinction. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several sibling tools related to Git repositories (e.g., 'gitExternalRepoInfo', 'gitRepos', 'checkRepo'), but the description doesn't mention any of them or explain scenarios where this tool is preferred. It offers no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions execution but lacks critical details: whether queries are read-only or mutating, permission requirements, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a SQL execution tool, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, efficiently conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of SQL execution (potential for data mutation, security implications) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral risks, result formatting, or error conditions, leaving critical gaps for safe and effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying SQL execution, which is already covered by the schema's 'sqlQuery' description. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Runs') and target ('a SQL query on the target system'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential SQL-related siblings (none are explicitly listed as SQL tools, but context isn't provided for differentiation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or constraints. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information, leaving the agent to infer applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a local or remote operation, if it requires authentication (implied by user/password params but not stated), what happens on failure, or if it's destructive to uncommitted changes. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a Git operation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'switching' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, error conditions, or how it interacts with other Git tools in the sibling list. The context demands more completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format of 'repo', branching rules). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('switches') and resource ('branch of a Git repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitPullRepo' or 'pushRepo' that also operate on Git repositories, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to Git operations (e.g., gitPullRepo, pushRepo, stageRepo), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific branch-switching function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'retrieves' data, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe, what permissions are needed, how it handles large tables, or what the output format looks like. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a data retrieval tool with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'contents' means (structure, format), how results are returned, or any limitations. Given the complexity and lack of structured information, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters like how 'sqlQuery' interacts with 'ddicEntityName' or what 'decode' actually does. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but no extra value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('contents of an ABAP table'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'nodeContents' or 'ddicRepositoryAccess' that might also retrieve data, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'nodeContents', 'ddicRepositoryAccess', and 'runQuery' that might retrieve or query data, there's no indication of when this specific table retrieval tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('retrieves') without detailing permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in trace analysis.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or error conditions, which are crucial for a tool that retrieves potentially complex database access information. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters 'id' and 'withSystemEvents' are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool operates on a trace, which is already clear from parameter names. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('database access information for a trace'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesHitList' or 'tracesStatements', which also retrieve trace-related data, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'tracesHitList' and 'tracesStatements' available, there is no indication of what specific database access information this tool provides compared to others, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Deletes' implies a destructive mutation, the description lacks details on permissions required, whether the deletion is irreversible, error handling (e.g., if the ID is invalid), or side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence ('Deletes a trace configuration.') with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to parse quickly without any wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, error responses), usage context, or what happens post-deletion. The high schema coverage for the single parameter is insufficient to compensate for these gaps in a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'The ID of the trace configuration.' The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Deletes') and the resource ('a trace configuration'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'tracesDelete' or 'deleteObject', which might also perform deletion operations on different resources, leaving some ambiguity about its specific scope within the system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing trace configuration ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'tracesCreateConfiguration' for creation or 'tracesList' for listing configurations, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieves,' implying a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned hit list. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'hit list' is, the format of the return data, or any behavioral traits like side effects or error conditions. For a tool with no structured support, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('id' and 'withSystemEvents'). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a 'hit list' entails or how 'system events' differ. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and the resource ('hit list for a trace'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'tracesList' or 'tracesStatements', which might also involve trace-related operations, so it lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Adds' implies a mutation/write operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate adds, or any error conditions. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that modifies system state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after the user is added, what the return value might be, error conditions, or system impacts. Given the complexity of modifying transport configurations, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenhanced parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Adds') and target resource ('a user to a transport'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies both the verb and the resource involved, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createTransport' or 'transportSetOwner' which might have related functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or when this operation is appropriate compared to other transport-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'transport configurations' includes, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits. For a retrieval tool in a complex environment with many siblings, this minimal description is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema handles all parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves transport configurations' clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('transport configurations'), but it's vague about what 'transport configurations' specifically entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getTransportConfiguration' or 'transportsByConfig'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'getTransportConfiguration' or 'transportsByConfig'. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Sets the owner') but does not explain critical details like required permissions, whether this is a destructive or reversible operation, error conditions, or system impacts. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It does not cover behavioral aspects like side effects, success/failure responses, or integration with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively in complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions ('transportNumber' and 'targetuser'), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It implies the action involves these parameters but adds no extra semantic context, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Sets') and resource ('owner of a transport'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'transportAddUser' or 'transportRelease', which limits its score to 4 instead of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'transportAddUser' for adding users to a transport or 'transportRelease' for releasing transports. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or related workflows, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks for existence, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'exists' means (e.g., active, configured, or available), the response format, or any side effects. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of efficient communication that earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple existence check. However, it doesn't explain what the check entails or the expected return, which could be important for an agent to interpret results correctly. It meets a basic threshold but lacks depth for full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could hint at implicit inputs (e.g., context or defaults), though not required. A baseline of 4 is given as the schema fully covers the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check if transport configuration exists' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('transport configuration'), but it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'getTransportConfiguration' or 'transportConfigurations', which might provide similar or overlapping functionality. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getTransportConfiguration' or 'transportConfigurations'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieves,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if authentication is needed, rate limits apply, or what the output format is. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it correctly indicates a retrieval action without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. This level of brevity is ideal for a straightforward retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output expectations. Given the tool's low complexity, it meets a bare minimum, but could be more helpful with added guidance or context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'findingUri' clearly documented as 'The URI of the ATC finding.' The description adds no additional parameter details beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and the resource ('contact URI for an ATC finding'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'atcChangeContact' or 'atcUsers', which also involve ATC contacts, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it requires specific permissions or if other tools should be used for related tasks like modifying contacts. This lack of usage context limits its effectiveness for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'navigates to' implies a state change in the debugger interface, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to the current debugger state, or if there are side effects like pausing execution. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Navigates to a specific stack entry in the debugger'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (navigation in a debugger), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral context, prerequisites, or expected outcomes. This leaves the agent with incomplete guidance for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'urlOrPosition' clearly documented as 'The URL or position of the stack entry.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('navigates to') and resource ('a specific stack entry in the debugger'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from other debugger tools like debuggerStep or debuggerStackTrace by focusing on navigation to a particular stack position rather than stepping through code or retrieving stack information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugger session), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like debuggerStep (for stepping) or debuggerStackTrace (for viewing stack). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Clear' implies a destructive action, but it doesn't specify whether this affects user authentication, requires permissions, has side effects, or what 'local session cache' entails. The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a potentially destructive tool. It doesn't explain what 'local session cache' includes, the impact of clearing it, or what happens after execution (e.g., re-authentication needed). More context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't contradict the schema, earning a baseline score for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Clear') and target ('local session cache'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, as none appear to be directly related to session cache management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'finds' something, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, performance characteristics, or what happens if the URL is invalid. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on what a 'collection' is in this system, how results are returned, or any prerequisites. With no annotations and many sibling tools, more completeness would help an agent use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as URL format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('finds') and resource ('a collection'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'searchObject' or 'findDefinition' that might also involve finding operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'searchObject' and 'findDefinition' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of when this specific URL-based lookup is preferred, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Retrieves a list') but fails to disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the retrieved list contains, its format, or any limitations. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of Git repositories'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitPullRepo' or 'gitCreateRepo', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'gitExternalRepoInfo' or 'remoteRepoInfo'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, filtering, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Terminate' implies a destructive action, but it doesn't specify effects (e.g., ending user authentication, clearing data), permissions required, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with potential security implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that likely ends a user session (with security and state implications), the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, it fails to provide the context needed for safe and effective use, especially compared to siblings like 'dropSession'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Terminate ABAP session' clearly states the action (terminate) and resource (ABAP session), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'dropSession' tool, which appears to serve a similar function, so it doesn't achieve full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dropSession' or other session management tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active session) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'transports' entails (e.g., format, scope). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in a tool definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage, behavior, or output, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively in context with siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 both parameters ('user' and 'targets'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as clarifying what 'user' refers to (e.g., username, ID) or the implications of 'targets'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and target resource ('transports for a user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'transportInfo' or 'transportsByConfig', which might also retrieve transport-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to transports (e.g., 'transportInfo', 'transportsByConfig'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Retrieves a list,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what 'ATC users' specifically refers to (e.g., vs. general system users). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., 'systemUsers'), it lacks context about what 'ATC users' entails and behavioral details, leaving room for confusion in a complex server environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no filtering or options are required, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of ATC users'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'systemUsers' or 'atcContactUri', which might retrieve related user information, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'systemUsers' and 'atcContactUri' that might handle user-related data, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool's usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Check' implies a read-only diagnostic operation, the description doesn't specify what 'health' entails (e.g., status codes, metrics, uptime), whether it requires authentication, if it has side effects (e.g., logging), or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear terminology. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or usage context that would help an agent invoke it effectively. For a diagnostic tool in a complex server environment, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly implies none are required by not mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully documents the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check server health and connectivity' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and target ('server health and connectivity'). It distinguishes itself from most sibling tools which perform operations on objects, transports, or code. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential health-related siblings (none are apparent in the list).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after login), frequency, or specific scenarios (e.g., troubleshooting connectivity issues). With 100+ sibling tools, the lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer when this diagnostic tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Authenticate') but doesn't explain what this entails—such as whether it creates a session, requires credentials (implied but not specified), has side effects like setting cookies, or returns tokens. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (authentication with 0 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but misses details like session management, error handling, or return values, which could help the agent use it correctly in context with other tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, and it implies authentication without specifying inputs, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully covers parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Authenticate with ABAP system' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Authenticate') and target ('ABAP system'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling 'logout' tool, which handles session termination, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication before other operations), exclusions, or related tools like 'logout', leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Retrieves'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, return format, or pagination. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage context, which are needed for full completeness in a server with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of system users'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'atcUsers' or 'userTransports', which might also deal with user-related data, so it lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'atcUsers' and 'userTransports' present, it fails to specify context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-abap-abap-adt-api MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mario-andreschak/mcp-abap-abap-adt-api/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mario-andreschak/mcp-abap-abap-adt-api)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-abap-abap-adt-api MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mario-andreschak/mcp-abap-abap-adt-api/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mario-andreschak/mcp-abap-abap-adt-api)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mario-andreschak/mcp-abap-abap-adt-api'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server