mcp-abap-adt

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

The description adds '[read-only]' which is valuable behavioral context since no annotations are provided. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the include doesn't exist. With no annotations, the description carries more 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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key information (read-only nature and purpose). Every word earns its place.

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 simple retrieval tool with 1 parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., code format, error responses). The '[read-only]' hint helps, but more behavioral context would improve 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%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'include_name'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ABAP include file'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetIncludesList' or 'GetObjectInfo', which might retrieve related information.

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 (like GetIncludesList for listing includes or GetObjectInfo for general object info), there's no indication of when this specific retrieval is appropriate or what distinguishes it.

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