GetClass

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 source code, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, what format the source code is returned in, or if there are any constraints on accessible classes. The description is minimal and lacks crucial 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by contributing essential information.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., raw code, structured metadata, error handling), nor does it provide context about permissions, system dependencies, or common failure modes. For a retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, more descriptive guidance is needed.

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 'class_name' documented as 'Name of the ABAP class'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, 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.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('ABAP class source code'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like GetFunction or GetProgram by specifying it retrieves class source code specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., GetTypeInfo might also retrieve class-related information).

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 when to choose GetClass over GetInterface for interface-related classes, or when to use SearchObject for broader searches. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases beyond the basic purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.