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. It discloses that the operation is read-only (stated explicitly), retrieves from an in-memory cache, and expands OBJECT_URI if present, which adds useful behavioral context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't cover aspects like error handling, cache freshness, or performance implications.

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, dense sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, key parameters, and a behavioral detail (OBJECT_URI expansion). It is front-loaded with the core action and has no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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-only tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic operation and cache context but lacks details on return values, error cases, or how the cache interacts with other tools. Given the complexity and sibling tools, it could benefit from more completeness.

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%, with each parameter documented as '[read-only]' with clear names. The description adds minimal value by listing the parameters used and hinting at OBJECT_URI expansion, but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Returns a node') and the resource ('from the in-memory objects list cache'), specifying it uses OBJECT_TYPE, OBJECT_NAME, and TECH_NAME as keys. It distinguishes from many sibling tools (e.g., GetObjectInfo, GetObjectsList) by focusing on cache retrieval with specific identifiers, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the most similar ones like GetObjectInfo.

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 stating the parameters used for lookup, suggesting it's for retrieving cached nodes by specific identifiers. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetObjectInfo or GetObjectsList, and doesn't 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.