mcp-abap-adt

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a table 'in initial state,' which implies a write operation with specific behavioral constraints (e.g., incomplete without DDL). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what 'initial state' entails beyond the UpdateTable reference, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds critical behavioral context without redundancy. Every word serves a clear function, making it highly efficient and well-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 adequately covers the purpose and usage guidelines. However, it lacks details on the output (e.g., what is returned upon creation) and deeper behavioral aspects like error conditions or dependencies, which would be beneficial given the complexity of ABAP table creation.

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 the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or usage nuances. 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 specific action ('Create a new ABAP table') and the method ('via the ADT API'), distinguishing it from siblings like CreateStructure or CreateView. It also specifies the resource type (ABAP table) and the initial state outcome.

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?

It explicitly provides when-not-to-use guidance by stating 'Use UpdateTable to set DDL code afterwards,' which clarifies the tool's limited scope and directs users to an alternative for subsequent modifications. This is a clear, actionable guideline.

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