Plan an ABAP Cloud migration

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by disclosing that the tool is a deterministic re-arrangement, does not modify any code, does not estimate effort in person-days, and inherits every readiness limitation such as static parser-level analysis and snapshot-dated released-API data. This gives an agent an accurate model of side effects and reliability without relying on annotations alone.

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 every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the primary outcome, enumerates the phase ordering, gives concrete selection guidance, states limitations, and provides an example. For a tool with this much behavioral nuance, the length is justified and well-structured, not padded.

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 rich annotations, full input schema coverage, and existing output schema, the description still adds essential context: the relationship to check_cloud_readiness, deterministic non-mutating behavior, inherited limitations, phase semantics, and an invocation example. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 schema already fully documents files, filename inference, maxItems/minItems, and baselineVersion semantics. The description adds a concrete usage example and some context around phases, but it does not materially improve parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Turn ABAP sources into an ordered, phased ABAP Cloud migration backlog' — and clearly distinguishes this tool from check_cloud_readiness by stating it arranges blockers into work items rather than returning raw findings. It names the exact deliverable (per-object work items, phases, exit criteria) so an agent can tell what this tool produces.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: when someone asks 'plan the migration', 'what do we tackle first', or wants a work breakdown instead of raw findings, and frames it as 'the natural next call after check_cloud_readiness'. It also names the sibling alternative and clarifies what the tool does not do (estimate person-days, modify code), giving clear selection guidance.

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