List Systems

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context that the listed systems are the destinations 'this server can reach' and that the output feeds every other tool, though it says nothing about the shape or stability of the returned list.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the highest-value information (what is listed, then where to use it). No filler or restated title text.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient for an agent to act: it says what is returned in principle and how the result is used. It could go slightly further by noting that identifiers from this list are the accepted values for other tools' destination argument, but nothing blocks 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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there is no filtering input by describing an unfiltered enumeration of configured systems.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the configured ABAP systems (destinations)') and clarifies the scope with 'this server can reach'. An agent can immediately tell this is a discovery tool that enumerates targets, distinct from the sibling healthcheck.

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?

'Call this first to pick the destination to pass to all other tools' gives explicit ordering guidance and explains the downstream dependency on the result. Nothing is left to inference about when this tool belongs in a workflow.

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