mcp-abap-adt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature upfront ('[read-only]'), which is crucial behavioral context. However, it lacks details on output format, pagination, or error conditions, which would be helpful for a tool with no output schema.

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 key information ('[read-only]') and clearly states the action and target. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and safety info but lacks details on return values, format, or potential limitations. For a read-only list tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.

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 ('Get') and resource ('list of inactive ABAP objects'), with specific qualification ('objects that have been modified but not activated'). It distinguishes from many sibling 'Get' tools by focusing on inactive objects, though not explicitly naming alternatives for similar queries.

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 implies usage when needing inactive ABAP objects, but does not specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'GetObjectsByType' or 'SearchObject'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open.

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