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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving status and result, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with no 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring to highlight key distinctions from siblings.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving test results), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter context but misses details on behavioral traits, error cases, and output format, which are important for an agent to use it effectively without structured guidance.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'run_id' well-documented in the schema as 'Run identifier returned by unit test run.' The description adds minimal value by referencing 'previously started run_id,' which slightly reinforces the schema but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints. 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 action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('CDS unit test run status and result'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like GetCdsUnitTestResult or GetCdsUnitTestStatus, which appear to serve similar purposes, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over those alternatives.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning 'for a previously started run_id,' implying it's used after a test run has been initiated. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetCdsUnitTestResult or GetCdsUnitTestStatus, and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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