mcp-abap-adt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: this is a creation/mutation operation (implied by 'Create'), it uses stateful sessions for lock management, and function groups serve as containers. It doesn't mention permission requirements, error handling, or what happens on duplicate names, but provides more than minimal context.

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 focused sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds important behavioral context about session management. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the 'what' and some behavioral context but doesn't address error cases, return values, or detailed usage scenarios that would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 function group') and resource ('in SAP system'), with additional context about function groups serving as containers for function modules. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like CreateFunctionModule (which creates modules within groups) and CreatePackage (which creates different container types).

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'stateful session for proper lock management,' suggesting this tool should be used within a session context. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like CreatePackage or CreateClass, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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