mcp-abap-adt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context about version support ('older ABAP versions but not in newer ones') and the ability to read 'active or inactive version,' which are useful behavioral traits not covered by the input schema. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., if the class doesn't exist), output format, or any rate limits, leaving gaps in transparency for a read operation.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first in a single sentence, followed by supporting details. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying version options and system compatibility. However, the second sentence could be slightly more integrated, and there's minor room for tightening without losing essential information.

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, read operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and some behavioral context but lacks details on output format, error handling, or examples. While the schema handles parameters well, the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should do more to compensate, which it only partially achieves.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('class_name' and 'version'), including enum values and defaults. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only implicitly reinforcing the version parameter by mentioning 'active or inactive version.' Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 macros source code from a class (macros include).' It specifies the verb ('Retrieve'), resource ('local macros source code'), and scope ('from a class'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetLocalDefinitions' or 'GetLocalTypes', which might retrieve other class components, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.

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 noting that 'macros are supported in older ABAP versions but not in newer ones,' which implies when this tool might be applicable based on system version. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other 'GetLocal...' tools) or any prerequisites for invocation, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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