mcp-abap-adt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates read-only operation via '[read-only]' and specifies the output format, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, rate limits, or whether it's a cached/real-time retrieval. It adds some value but leaves gaps in behavioral context.

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 with zero waste—front-loaded with the read-only hint and core purpose. Every word earns its place, 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-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks details on return structure, error cases, or system-specific behaviors. Given the complexity of ADT objects and the absence of output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 fully documents the two parameters (objecttype and objectname). The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying valid objecttype values or naming conventions. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('ADT object structure'), specifying the output format ('compact JSON tree'). It distinguishes from many siblings that retrieve different ADT objects (e.g., GetClass, GetTable) but not from GetObjectStructureLow, which has a similar name but unclear 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetObjectStructureLow or GetNodeStructureLow, which appear related. The description implies usage for retrieving object structures but lacks context on prerequisites, constraints, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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