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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this creates a package but doesn't mention permissions required, whether this is a safe operation, potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 directly address the tool's purpose and context. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks critical context about behavioral aspects, usage scenarios, and expected outcomes. The comprehensive schema helps, but the description alone is insufficient for full understanding of this complex operation.

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 documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but the schema provides comprehensive descriptions including naming conventions, defaults, and requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does 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 new ABAP package') and resource ('in SAP system'), with additional context about packages being containers for development objects. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on package creation rather than other ABAP objects, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions packages are 'essential for organizing code' but doesn't specify prerequisites, dependencies, or when this creation is appropriate compared to other package-related operations or other object creation tools.

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