objectRegistrationInfo

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.