mcp-abap-adt

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

The description includes '[read-only]' to indicate it's a safe operation, which is helpful since no annotations are provided. It also mentions what information is resolved ('types, scopes, descriptions, and packages'), adding context. However, it lacks details on performance, error handling, or output format, which would be valuable for a tool with no output schema.

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 (read-only nature and purpose). It could be slightly more structured by separating the read-only note from the core functionality, but it's generally well-sized with no wasted words.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and safety context but lacks details on behavioral aspects like output structure or error conditions. Given the complexity of ABAP symbol resolution, more completeness would be beneficial, though the read-only hint and parameter coverage help minimally.

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 fully documents the two parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain symbol resolution nuances for the 'code' parameter). 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('ABAP symbols'), and specifies the scope ('from semantic analysis with SAP system information'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAbapAST' or 'GetAbapSemanticAnalysis' that might handle related ABAP analysis tasks.

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 for ABAP analysis (e.g., GetAbapAST, GetAbapSemanticAnalysis), there's no indication of this tool's specific use case, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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