Get UI5 API reference for a control

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by revealing the source is official TypeScript type definitions and that results are cached locally after first use.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the function and scope, the second adds source and caching behavior. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a simple read-only, idempotent tool with two well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is fetched, for which kind of input, from where, and the caching behavior, leaving no critical operational gap.

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 both controlName and ui5Version are already documented in the schema. The description adds a concrete controlName example, but does not provide new semantics beyond what the schema already states, matching the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetches and formats') and names the exact resource ('UI5 API reference' with properties, aggregations, events, methods). It also gives a concrete example control ('sap.m.Table'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_docs or get_cap_details.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when an agent needs the full API reference for a specific UI5 control. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion guidance, but the context 'for a control such as' establishes the selection criterion clearly enough.

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