syntaxCheckCode

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. A tool performing a syntax check likely has significant behavioral aspects (e.g., server-side state, error formatting) that are entirely omitted.

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 terse sentence. While concise, it is under-specified and does not earn its place by providing useful detail. A slightly longer description that qualifies the input or output would be more beneficial.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and very low schema coverage, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not mention the result format, error handling, supported ABAP versions, or anything about the check's scope (e.g., syntax only vs. semantic checks). The agent would lack critical context to use this tool effectively.

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 extremely low (17%), with only the 'connection' parameter having a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters—it does not clarify the expected format of 'code', the role of optional parameters like 'url' or 'version', or any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the inadequate schema documentation.

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 verb 'Perform' and the resource 'ABAP syntax check' with 'source code' as input. It effectively communicates the basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like syntaxCheckCdsUrl or syntaxCheckTypes, which check syntax for specific ABAP subtypes.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, required authentication, or typical usage scenarios. The description lacks any actionable usage context beyond the basic action.

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