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 that creation happens '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 operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure.

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 earn their place. The first states the core purpose, the second provides crucial behavioral context about initial state and the UpdateInterface alternative. No wasted words.

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 but minimal context. It covers the basic purpose and one important behavioral constraint (initial state), but doesn't address what the tool returns, error handling, or other operational considerations that would be helpful for an 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, which already cover naming conventions, defaults, and requirements adequately.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new ABAP interface in SAP system'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning UpdateInterface for setting source code, though it doesn't differentiate from other Create* tools like CreateClass or CreateTable.

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 provides clear context by stating 'Creates the interface object in initial state' and explicitly directing to 'Use UpdateInterface to set source code afterwards.' This gives good guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative, though it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or compare with other Create* tools.

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