syntaxCheckCode

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description should provide this context but fails to do so.

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 with no unnecessary words, achieving conciseness. However, it is too brief to be effective, lacking structure or prioritization of key information.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter relationships, expected output, or usage details needed for correct invocation.

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 only mentions 'source code' matching the required 'code' parameter. It adds no meaning for the optional parameters (url, mainUrl, version, mainProgram), which are all strings without enums. With 0% schema description coverage, much more detail is needed.

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 'Perform ABAP syntax check' and the resource 'source code,' providing a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like syntaxCheckCdsUrl or syntaxCheckTypes, which have similar purposes.

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, nor any prerequisites or context. The description is purely functional without usage recommendations.

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