mcp-abap-adt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Creates the test class in initial state', which implies a write operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or any side effects. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning key parameters or context, though it's efficiently worded.

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's complexity (creating a unit test with CDS validation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'CDS validation' entails, what the 'initial state' means, or what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, test class details). For a creation tool in a rich ABAP environment, more context is needed.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of valid CDS view names or package types). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create a CDS unit test class with CDS validation') and resource ('CDS unit test class'), specifying it creates the class in 'initial state'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'CreateUnitTest' or 'CreateClass', which could create similar artifacts without the CDS-specific validation.

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. With many sibling tools for creating various ABAP objects (e.g., CreateUnitTest, CreateClass, CreateBehaviorDefinition), the description lacks context about prerequisites, when this specific CDS-focused test creation is appropriate, or what makes it distinct from generic test creation tools.

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