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 starts with '[read-only]', indicating it's a safe operation without side effects, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on performance (e.g., analysis time), error handling, or output format (beyond listing categories like 'symbols, types'). For a semantic analysis tool, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 key information: the read-only nature, action, and output. There's no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's purpose and safety hint but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a semantic analysis tool in a complex ABAP environment, more contextual information would improve agent usability.

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 both parameters ('code' and 'filePath') adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain ABAP code constraints or file path usage). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Perform semantic analysis on ABAP code and return symbols, types, scopes, and dependencies.' It specifies the verb ('perform semantic analysis'), resource ('ABAP code'), and output details. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'GetAbapAST' (which likely provides syntactic analysis), leaving room for improvement in sibling differentiation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., development vs. debugging), or comparisons with siblings like 'GetAbapAST' or 'GetObjectStructure'. This lack of usage context makes it harder for an agent to select this tool appropriately among many options.

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