classIncludes

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.