mcp-abap-adt

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

The description includes '[read-only]' at the start, indicating it's a non-destructive operation, which is helpful since no annotations are provided. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like error handling for invalid code, performance considerations, or whether the AST format is standardized. Without annotations, the description carries more burden but only partially addresses behavioral aspects.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary details or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (parsing code to AST), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic operation but doesn't explain the AST format, potential errors, or output details. However, the high schema coverage and clear purpose help mitigate some gaps, making it minimally 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('code' and 'filePath'). The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the AST structure or file path usage. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Parse ABAP code and return AST (Abstract Syntax Tree) in JSON format.' It specifies the verb (parse), resource (ABAP code), and output (AST in JSON). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAbapSemanticAnalysis' or 'GetAbapSystemSymbols', which might also analyze ABAP code but serve different purposes.

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. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing valid ABAP syntax, or comparisons to other tools that might handle ABAP analysis differently. This omission leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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