mcp-abap-adt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the creation action and the 'initial state' outcome, which implies a write operation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success. It adds some context about the workflow but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every element earns its place, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage guidance but lacks details about behavioral aspects (like permissions, error handling, or what the tool returns). It covers the basic workflow but doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured information about the tool's operation.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (like explaining naming conventions or dependencies). It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('Create a new ABAP behavior implementation class') and resource ('for a behavior definition'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like CreateBehaviorDefinition (which creates definitions) and UpdateBehaviorImplementation (which modifies implementations). It provides precise domain context that helps differentiate its purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Creates the object in initial state') versus when to use an alternative ('Use UpdateBehaviorImplementation to set implementation code afterwards'). This provides clear guidance on the workflow and distinguishes it from the update sibling tool.

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