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 that the tool retrieves definitions and supports version selection, but lacks details on permissions required, error handling, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, size). For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 and adds a useful detail about version support. There's no wasted wording, and it's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from constraints.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and version aspect but misses behavioral details like authentication needs, response format, or error cases. For a retrieval tool in a context with many siblings, more guidance on differentiation would enhance completeness.

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 descriptions for all parameters, including an enum for 'version' with a default. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'active or inactive version,' which aligns with the enum 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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('ABAP function module definition'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'CreateFunctionModule' or 'UpdateFunctionModule' by specifying retrieval rather than creation/modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar read operations like 'ReadFunctionModule' 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 version parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'ReadFunctionModule' or 'GetFunctionGroup,' 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.