getObjectSource

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'Retrieves source code' without mentioning side effects, auth needs, return format, or what happens on failure. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit, and there is no detail on response structure or error behavior.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no wasted words. It is concise, though this brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter info, the description is too incomplete. It does not clarify what 'ABAP objects' includes, how the source is returned, or how this tool relates to siblings like setObjectSource or objectStructure.

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 0% and the description says nothing about the two parameters. 'objectSourceUrl' is self-explanatory as a URL but 'options' is entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Retrieves source code for ABAP objects' uses a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like objectStructure or classIncludes, but 'source code' is distinct enough for a basic understanding.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as needing an ADT URL or login, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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