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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Delete') and provides critical implementation-specific behavior: that ADT will return an error. However, it doesn't mention permissions required, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, or what happens on success.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, the second provides crucial implementation guidance. Every word earns its place, and the warning is appropriately placed as a note rather than buried in the middle.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by warning about the ADT limitation. However, it doesn't describe what happens on successful deletion (confirmation? status?) or error conditions beyond ADT. Given the tool's destructive nature, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already states about 'run_id'. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('ABAP Unit test run'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'DeleteClass' or 'DeleteTable' by specifying the exact type of object being deleted. It provides precise scope information that differentiates it from other deletion 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool: 'Note: ADT does not support deleting unit test runs and will return an error.' This clearly warns against usage in ADT contexts, offering crucial alternative guidance that prevents failed invocations.

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