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 the tool retrieves source code and supports version selection, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what 'definitions include' entails. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key feature (version support). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter context but lacks details on behavioral aspects like return format, error cases, or system-specific constraints. Without annotations or output schema, more contextual information would be beneficial for effective use.

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 both parameters: 'class_name' as the parent class name and 'version' with enum values and default. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the version options ('active or inactive version') but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already documents, aligning with the baseline score for high 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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieve local definitions source code from a class (definitions include).' It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('local definitions source code'), and scope ('from a class'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetLocalMacros' or 'GetLocalTypes', which might retrieve similar but distinct resources, preventing a perfect score.

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 implied usage context by mentioning it 'Supports reading active or inactive version,' which suggests when to choose between version options. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetClass' or 'GetLocalMacros' from the sibling list, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity.

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