syntaxCheckCdsUrl

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, or the format of the return value (e.g., list of errors/warnings). The optional connection parameter's impact is not explained.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded but under-informative.

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 tool's complexity (syntax checking, likely returning results) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return format or how to interpret results.

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?

The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The cdsUrl parameter has no description in the schema, and the description does not explain its expected format or content. The connection parameter is already described in the schema. With 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 it performs an ABAP syntax check on a CDS URL, distinguishing it from siblings like syntaxCheckCode and syntaxCheckTypes. However, it does not clarify what constitutes a 'CDS URL'.

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 syntaxCheckCode or syntaxCheckTypes. The agent must infer based on the tool name alone.

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