mcp-abap-adt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions reading 'source code' and version options, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only (implied by 'retrieve'), what format the source code returns, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 the core purpose and includes essential context about version support. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, 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?

For a read operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and key parameter context, but lacks information about return format, error conditions, or system behavior. Given the complexity of retrieving source code, more completeness would be beneficial despite the good schema coverage.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting both parameters with clear descriptions, default values, and enum options. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the version parameter's purpose ('active or inactive version'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already covers.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('local types source code from a class'), specifying that implementations are included. It distinguishes from general 'GetClass' tools by focusing on local types specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools.

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 context by mentioning 'active or inactive version' support, suggesting this tool should be used when needing either deployed or modified-but-not-activated versions. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like 'GetClass' or 'GetLocalDefinitions', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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