Read a BW object

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: what each detail level actually returns (compact overview vs every property vs backend XML/JSON) and the cost implication of raw. It stops short of noting size/performance characteristics for full on large objects.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then detail levels, then part. Every clause conveys actionable information with no restatement of the title or filler.

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, yet the description covers what each detail level returns, which is the main thing an agent needs. Gaps are modest: interaction between part and detail, and any guidance on object type values, but neither blocks correct invocation for a 5-param read tool.

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?

With 60% schema coverage, the description carries real weight and does: it defines all three detail values and explains part as a section filter with concrete examples (fields, keys, rules, steps, layout). The large type enum (AREA, IOBJ, ADSO, ...) is left unexplained in both schema and description, and source_system is only tagged 'Only for RSDS' in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read the definition of one BW object.' Clear enough that an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like bw_describe or bw_context, which an agent could reasonably confuse with reading an object's definition.

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 useful in-tool guidance — raw 'should only be used for debugging' and 'use part to read only one section of a large object' — including an explicit when-not for raw. But it never says when to pick bw_read over bw_describe, bw_context, or bw_search, so tool-level routing is left to inference.

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