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 mentions 'stateful session for proper lock management,' which adds valuable behavioral context about transactional handling. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like whether this is a write operation (implied by 'Create'), permission requirements, error handling, or what happens on 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 two sentences that efficiently convey the main purpose and a key behavioral aspect. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. There's minimal wasted language, though it could potentially be more structured.

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 basic purpose and some behavioral context but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns an object reference, status), error conditions, or integration with other tools like activation or transport processes beyond the parameters.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 service definition') and the resource type ('for OData services'), with additional context about what service definitions do. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like CreateServiceBinding or CreateBehaviorDefinition, which also create related ABAP artifacts.

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 when creating OData service definitions and mentions stateful session for lock management, suggesting this is for transactional consistency. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like UpdateServiceDefinition or when not to use it (e.g., for non-OData services).

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