Explain an abaplint rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool does not perform analysis and is limited to abaplint rules, providing clear behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Concise and well-structured: purpose first, then usage context, then limitations, then example. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter schema, annotations, and presence of output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers all necessary information for an AI agent to decide when and how to invoke the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'rule' parameter. The description adds an example usage (explain_abap_rule({ "rule": "exit_or_check" })), which adds practical value beyond 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?

The description clearly states it explains an abaplint rule in depth, listing specific elements (title, description, rationale, examples). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lint_abap and check_cloud_readiness by focusing on justification, not analysis.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when a lint_abap or check_cloud_readiness finding needs justification'. Also specifies what is out of scope: 'does not run analysis and only knows abaplint rules; SAP ATC check documentation is out of scope'.

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