Get a dependency graph of ABAP objects

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

Annotations already provide read-only, closed-world, and idempotent hints. The description adds crucial limitations beyond that: it only sees the text passed, textual edges miss dynamic calls, and absence of an edge is not proof of independence. This gives a clear mental model without contradiction.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose, node/edge derivation, optional Mermaid output, usage, limitations, and example. Every sentence earns its place, though it is slightly long; still it is front-loaded with the most important intent.

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 cover safety and idempotency, the description covers all necessary usage context: what it analyzes, how edges are derived, when to use, limitations, and an example. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), and the description adds a concrete example invocation and clarifies filename inference rules (e.g., omitting filename infers type from source). This exceeds baseline but doesn't deeply elaborate each parameter 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 states a specific action ('Build a dependency graph') on a specific resource ('provided ABAP sources') and clearly frames it for migration sequencing and impact reading. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming plan_cloud_migration as a companion and explicitly contrasting with a where-used list.

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 lists when to use (deciding migration order, rework impact, pulling non-released tables) and when not (it is not a where-used list, cannot see dynamic calls, absent edge is not proof of independence). Points to authoritative alternatives like system where-used and ATC.

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