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. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'valid ADT object types' entails (e.g., format, scope). With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key information (read-only and purpose), making it easy 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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and safety but lacks details on return values or usage context. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, but it meets a basic threshold.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'validate_type' documented as optional for type validation. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it only mentions retrieving all types without referencing the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('all valid ADT object types'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetObjectInfo' or 'GetTypeInfo', which might retrieve similar metadata, 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 like 'GetTypeInfo' or 'GetObjectInfo' that might retrieve type-related information, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool.

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