mcp-abap-adt

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

The description includes '[read-only]' at the start, which is useful behavioral context since no annotations are provided. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'enhancements' entail (e.g., types, formats, or pagination). For a tool with no annotations, this is a minimal but adequate disclosure.

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 information ('[read-only] Retrieve a list of enhancements'). There's no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (simple read operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states the purpose and read-only nature but lacks details on return values, error handling, or usage context, which could help the agent better understand the tool's role among siblings.

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 both parameters ('object_name' and 'object_type') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond implying the parameters are used to specify the ABAP object, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 ('list of enhancements for a given ABAP object'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetEnhancementSpot' or 'GetEnhancementImpl', which likely retrieve different aspects of enhancements, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'GetEnhancementSpot', 'GetEnhancementImpl'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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