mcp-abap-adt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Retrieve'), which is helpful, but doesn't mention other important traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the implementation doesn't exist, rate limits, or the format of the returned definition. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 extremely concise with two clear sentences: one stating the core purpose and another specifying the version support. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main functionality. No unnecessary details or redundancy.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a read operation. It covers the basic purpose and version options, but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output documentation, it should provide more context to be fully complete.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'active or inactive version,' which aligns with the 'version' parameter's enum. However, it doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage examples, staying at 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 implementation definition' with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('ABAP behavior implementation definition'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'GetBehaviorDefinition' by specifying it's for 'implementation' rather than 'definition', but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'ReadBehaviorImplementation' which appears to be a similar sibling tool.

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 some usage context by stating it 'Supports reading active or inactive version,' which implies when to choose between version options. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ReadBehaviorImplementation' or 'GetBehaviorDefinition', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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