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 tool creates a function module 'in initial state' and that source code must be set separately, which are important behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the creation is reversible, or what happens if the function group doesn't exist.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second provides crucial workflow guidance. There is zero wasted language.

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 does well by explaining the creation workflow and distinguishing from the update tool. However, it doesn't address potential error conditions, return values, or system-specific constraints beyond the initial state mention.

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 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage.

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 module'), the target resource ('within an existing function group'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning the alternative 'UpdateFunctionModule' for setting source code. It provides a complete picture of what the tool does.

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 ('Create a new ABAP function module within an existing function group') and when to use an alternative ('Use UpdateFunctionModule to set source code afterwards'). This provides clear guidance on the tool's role in the workflow.

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