GetInclude

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, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the source code is returned in. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and contains no unnecessary elaboration. This represents optimal efficiency in description length.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While the purpose is clear, there's no information about what format the source code is returned in, potential limitations, error handling, or how this tool differs from similar retrieval tools in the sibling set. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 'include_name' clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'ABAP Include Source Code', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like GetClass or GetProgram, but the specificity of 'ABAP Include' provides some implicit distinction. The description avoids tautology by not simply restating the tool name.

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 GetProgram or SearchObject. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for selecting this specific retrieval tool, or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone without explicit direction.

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