mcp-abap-adt

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

The description adds '[read-only]' at the start, which is useful behavioral context since no annotations are provided. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like error handling, performance characteristics, or what happens if the enhancement doesn't exist. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides only basic safety information.

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 key action. The '[read-only]' prefix is slightly awkward but doesn't significantly impact readability. There's no wasted text, though it could be more polished.

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-only tool with 2 parameters and full schema coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the tool is read-only but doesn't describe the return value (source code format) or error conditions. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, it should provide more context about what 'retrieve' yields.

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 description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description could have explained relationships between parameters or provided examples.

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 ('source code of a specific enhancement implementation'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetEnhancements' or 'GetEnhancementSpot', which likely retrieve different aspects of enhancements.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'GetEnhancements' (which might list enhancements) or 'GetEnhancementSpot' (which might retrieve spot details), leaving the agent to infer usage context from tool names alone.

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