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 the tool retrieves domain definitions and supports version selection, but doesn't describe what a 'domain definition' contains, whether it requires specific permissions, error conditions, or response format. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve ABAP domain definition') and adds necessary qualification ('Supports reading active or inactive version'). There's zero wasted text, and every word earns its place in clarifying the tool's functionality.

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?

For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'domain definition' contains, what format the response takes, or any error scenarios. Given the complexity of ABAP domains and the lack of structured output documentation, users need more context to understand what they're retrieving.

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 clear documentation for both parameters including enum values and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'active or inactive version' which aligns with the schema's 'version' parameter but doesn't provide additional semantic context. 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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('ABAP domain definition'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'CreateDomain' and 'DeleteDomain' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar retrieval tools like 'ReadDomain' in the sibling list.

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 mentioning support for 'active or inactive version,' which helps understand when to use different parameter values. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'ReadDomain' or other Get* tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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