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 states 'retrieve' and 'reading', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (since no output schema exists). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key feature. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary words. However, the repetition of 'definition' ('behavior definition definition') is slightly awkward, though not detrimental to clarity.

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 complexity of retrieving ABAP behavior definitions, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what is returned (e.g., structure, format, or content of the definition), potential side effects, or error handling. For a tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the result.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'active or inactive version', which is already covered in the schema's enum and description for the 'version' parameter. No additional parameter semantics are provided, meeting 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: 'Retrieve ABAP behavior definition definition' with the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'ABAP behavior definition'. It specifies the scope 'Supports reading active or inactive version.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ReadBehaviorDefinition', which appears to serve a similar purpose, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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 sibling tools like 'ReadBehaviorDefinition' and 'GetBehaviorImplementation' that might overlap in functionality, there's no explicit or implied context for selection. The mention of 'active or inactive version' is a feature description, not usage guidance relative to other tools.

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