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 the tool retrieves status but doesn't describe what the status entails (e.g., pending, running, completed), whether it's a read-only operation, if it involves polling behavior, or any error conditions. The mention of 'run_id' implies it's querying existing data, but this isn't explicitly confirmed.

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 core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand 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 complexity of retrieving test status (which may involve asynchronous processes and polling), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more context. It doesn't explain what the status output looks like, how long polling works, or potential states, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, with clear documentation for both parameters: 'run_id' as a required identifier and 'with_long_polling' as an optional boolean for enabling long polling. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it 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 resource ('CDS unit test run status') with a specific identifier ('for a run_id'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetCdsUnitTestResult' or 'GetUnitTestStatus', which likely retrieve related but different information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid run_id from a previous operation) or compare it to similar tools like 'GetCdsUnitTestResult' or 'GetUnitTestStatus', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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