abapDocumentation

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.