prettyPrinter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only (non-destructive) or what side effects occur. The return value (formatted code?) is not mentioned, and the description is silent on behavioral traits.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. While it could include slightly more detail (e.g., output), it is efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return value (e.g., formatted code string). It does not. Additionally, given the complexity of the ABAP environment and many sibling tools, it lacks contextual instructions for the agent.

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%, with both parameters ('source' and 'connection') described adequately in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic nuance beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Formats') and the resource ('ABAP code') via a specific mechanism ('pretty printer'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'prettyPrinterSetting' and 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' which deal with settings rather than formatting.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' for configuration or other code formatting approaches. There is no mention of prerequisites or contextual conditions.

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