validateNewObject

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It states 'validate' which implies a non-destructive, read-only check, but does not confirm whether the tool causes side effects, requires authentication, or what happens on success/failure. The behavioral account is minimal.

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. However, it is under-specified and lacks essential details. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of clarity, warranting a medium score.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the validation process, expected return format, prerequisites, or error handling. The agent lacks sufficient information 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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'options' of type string with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'options' should contain, its format, or any valid values. It adds no meaning beyond the schema type and name.

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 that the tool validates parameters for a new ABAP object. It uses a specific verb 'Validate' and identifies the resource 'parameters for a new ABAP object', distinguishing it from sibling tools like createObject. However, it does not specify the type of validation or scope.

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. It is implied to be used before createObject, but no explicit context or conditions are given. Sibling tools include creation, search, and other operations, but the description does not differentiate usage scenarios.

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