atcCustomizing

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.