nodeContents

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read-only status, authentication requirements, performance implications, or any side effects, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 a single, clear sentence without wasted words. Although concise, it could be improved by front-loading key information, but it meets the conciseness standard.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what 'contents' returns, how parameters like parent_name, parentnodes, or rebuild_tree interrelate, or what a typical response looks like, leaving significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide; it does not explain parameter interactions or usage nuances.

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 'retrieves' and resource 'contents of a node in the ABAP repository tree', making the core purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like tableContents or objectStructure, though could clarify what 'contents' specifically means.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like objectStructure or tableContents. The description omits any context about prerequisites, when it's appropriate, or when not to use it.

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