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 that the tool 'retrieves' and supports reading versions, implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, size). For a tool with no annotations, 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 ('Retrieve ABAP metadata extension definition') and adds a useful detail ('Supports reading active or inactive version'). There is no wasted wording, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and version support but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. For a retrieval tool in a complex server environment, more contextual information would be beneficial to ensure proper usage.

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 both parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'metadata_extension_name' with an example, 'version' with enum values and default). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what's in the schema, such as syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 ('ABAP metadata extension definition'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'CreateMetadataExtension' and 'UpdateMetadataExtension' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'ReadMetadataExtension', which might serve a similar purpose, leaving some ambiguity.

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 by mentioning support for 'active or inactive version', which suggests when to use this tool based on version status. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'ReadMetadataExtension' or other retrieval tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are provided, leaving usage context partially implied.

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