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. It discloses the read-only nature via '[read-only]' and describes the recursive behavior, which is crucial. However, it does not mention potential performance impacts, error handling, or output format details, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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] Recursively discover and list ALL include files'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and behavior but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or recursion limits. Given the complexity (recursive discovery) and missing output schema, it should provide more context about what is returned.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the recursion depth or how 'detailed' affects output. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Recursively discover and list'), the target ('ALL include files'), and the scope ('within an ABAP program or include'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'GetInclude' (which likely fetches a single include) by emphasizing 'ALL' and 'recursively'.

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 a comprehensive list of includes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetInclude' or 'GetObjectStructure'. It provides some context ('recursively') but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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