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 mentions session management behavior (creating a new session if not provided) and the low-level nature, which adds some context. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond session management. The description provides basic context but leaves significant 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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the core function, providing usage context, and explaining session management. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the bracketed '[low-level]' could be integrated more smoothly, and the second sentence could be more tightly connected to the first.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic context but has significant gaps. It covers session management and low-level nature, but doesn't explain what 'node structure' means in practice, what the response format looks like, error handling, or performance characteristics. For a tool with complex parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema, more completeness would be expected.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it only mentions session_id and session_state parameters in relation to GetSession. It doesn't explain the purpose of parent_type/parent_name or node_id hierarchy, nor the significance of with_short_descriptions. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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: 'Fetch node structure from ADT repository' specifies the verb (fetch) and resource (node structure). It adds context about being 'low-level' and for 'object tree navigation and structure discovery', which helps differentiate it from similar tools like GetObjectStructure or GetObjectStructureLow. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with its closest sibling GetObjectStructureLow.

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 clear usage context: it mentions session management ('Can use session_id and session_state from GetSession to maintain the same session'), which is helpful guidance. It also implies this is for low-level operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetObjectStructure or GetObjectStructureLow, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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