Check Inactive Objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the definition of an inactive version, the fact that results are limited to the connected user's own worklist (no cross-user view), and the shape of returned items. The 'Read-only' sentence duplicates the annotation rather than adding to it.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, resource and definition of inactive, then the workflow, then the safety note. Three compact sentences with little waste, though the trailing 'Read-only' clause restates an annotation and is the one line that does not earn its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (type, name, ADT URL). For a zero-required-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed: what it returns, whose objects it returns, and what to do with the result.

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?

Only one parameter (connectionId) with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already does the work. The description's contribution is the negative constraint 'takes no object input,' which usefully signals connectionId is the sole scoping lever and there is no object filter to supply.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (ABAP objects with an inactive version) and an explicit definition of what 'inactive' means (saved but not activated). It even enumerates the returned fields (type, name, ADT URL) and scopes results to the connected user's inactive worklist, so it is clearly distinguishable from search_abap_objects or browse_package.

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?

Gives an explicit when: after write_abap_object_source to find what still needs activating. Gives an explicit next step: pass the returned URLs to abap_activate or abap_activate_multiple, naming both alternatives and the condition that selects between them.

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