Get ABAP source outline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint is false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a 'cheap first call,' does not return method bodies or analyze quality, and yields empty outlines for CDS/behavior-definition files. The mermaid option is also explained.

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 concise—about 6 sentences—and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, limitations, parameter explanation, and an example. It could be slightly shorter, but it is well-structured and clear.

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 output schema exists and annotations are present, the description is complete enough for this moderately complex tool. It covers what is returned (structural outline of classes, interfaces, FORM), limitations (no method bodies, CDS yields empty), and the optional mermaid output. No critical gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little extra meaning beyond the schema: it repeats the mermaid option purpose and provides an example call, which is helpful but not significant. No deeper parameter semantics are introduced.

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 tool returns a structural outline of ABAP sources—listing classes, methods, visibility, interfaces, inheritance, and FORM routines—and explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting it does not return method bodies or analyze code quality. It also specifies that CDS/behavior-definition files yield an empty outline, leaving no ambiguity.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when navigating a large class or legacy program to decide which part to read or edit next; it is the cheap first call.' It also excludes alternatives: 'use lint_abap for' code quality analysis, and mentions CDS files produce empty outlines, helping the agent decide correctly.

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