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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'create, activate, and verify steps', which implies a multi-step process, but fails to detail critical aspects like whether this is a write operation (implied by 'create'), potential side effects, error handling, permissions required, or what 'verify' entails. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the steps or adding brief context. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the complexity of creating an ABAP structure with multiple parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and steps but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must rely heavily on the input schema for operational details.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or providing examples. This meets the baseline for high 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 action ('Create a new ABAP structure') and specifies what it includes ('fields and type references'), along with the operational steps ('create, activate, and verify steps'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'CreateTable' or 'CreateClass' by focusing on structures, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'UpdateStructure' or 'DeleteStructure'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'UpdateStructure' or 'CreateTable', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing SAP system access or appropriate permissions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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