GetFunctionGroup

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether authentication is needed, what format the source code returns in, if there are rate limits, or how errors are handled. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that accesses source code.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include any unnecessary 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?

For a tool that retrieves source code with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the source code returns in (raw text, structured format), whether it includes metadata, or how to handle the result. The context signals show this is part of a larger ABAP development toolset, but the description doesn't leverage this context.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter clearly documented as 'Name of the function module'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the high 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 clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('ABAP Function Group source code'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'GetFunction', which likely retrieves individual function modules rather than function groups.

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 like 'GetFunction' or 'SearchObject'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions that would help an agent choose appropriately among the many sibling tools.

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