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. It discloses that the tool is '[read-only]' and describes behavioral traits like tree depth limits ('up to maxDepth'), node enrichment ('if enrich=true'), and node types ('root, point, end'). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format, which are important for a tool with no annotation coverage, making the transparency adequate but incomplete.

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, starting with the core purpose. It uses two sentences efficiently to cover key points without waste. However, the first sentence is somewhat dense, packing multiple concepts (tree structure, depth, enrichment), which slightly affects readability, but overall it remains well-structured and to the point.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic context on behavior and output structure but lacks completeness. It does not explain the return values in detail (e.g., format of nodes, error responses) or address potential complexities like large trees or system dependencies. For a tool with 4 parameters and rich functionality, this leaves gaps in guiding an AI agent effectively.

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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying the effect of 'enrich' and 'maxDepth' on the output tree. It does not provide additional context like examples or edge cases, resulting in a baseline score of 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Return ABAP object tree: root, group nodes, and terminal leaves up to maxDepth.' It specifies the verb ('Return') and resource ('ABAP object tree'), and details the structure of the output (root, group nodes, leaves). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetObjectStructure' or 'GetObjectNodeFromCache', which likely serve similar hierarchical purposes, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 'enrich each node via SearchObject if enrich=true,' which suggests an alternative tool ('SearchObject') for enrichment details. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other sibling tools (e.g., 'GetObjectStructure' or 'GetPackageTree') and does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context partially inferred rather than clearly stated.

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