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. It discloses that the class is created 'in initial state' and requires UpdateClass for source code, adding useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or system-specific constraints, which are important for a creation tool.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise guideline in the second sentence. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a key usage guideline but lacks details on behavioral aspects like success/failure responses or system dependencies, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors not covered in schema descriptions.

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 class') and resource ('in SAP system'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like UpdateClass, DeleteClass, and GetClass by specifying its unique role in creating an initial class object.

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?

It provides clear context by indicating that UpdateClass should be used afterward to set source code, which helps differentiate usage from UpdateClass. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives for other scenarios, such as modifying existing classes.

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