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 indicates '[read-only]' and 'Batch description', which implies a safe, non-destructive operation that processes multiple items. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination).

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 brief and front-loaded with key information (read-only, batch, input structure). Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from input details).

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete: it covers the basic operation and input. However, for a tool with 1 parameter (a complex array) and no output details, it should ideally explain the return format or usage examples to be fully adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the input structure and provides examples of object types (e.g., PROG/P, CLAS/OC), adding useful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail constraints like valid name formats or the effect of optional types, leaving some gaps.

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 verb ('Batch description') and resource ('ABAP objects'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like GetObjectInfo or SearchObject, which might also retrieve object information, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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. With many sibling tools that retrieve or describe objects (e.g., GetObjectInfo, SearchObject), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using DescribeByList.

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