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 the return format ('compact JSON tree' and 'XML response') and session handling, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when session parameters are omitted. The description provides some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with session management and object retrieval.

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 two sentences that each serve a purpose: the first states the core functionality and return format, the second provides session handling context. There's no redundant information, though the '[low-level]' prefix could be more integrated into the sentence structure.

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's complexity (session management, object retrieval, 4 parameters) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the relationship between the 'compact JSON tree' and 'XML response' mentioned, doesn't describe error conditions, doesn't clarify what '[low-level]' means operationally, and provides minimal guidance about when and how to use this tool effectively. The description leaves too many open questions for proper agent 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the relationship between session parameters and the GetSession tool, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about object_type/object_name parameters beyond what's in their schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ADT object structure') and the resource ('ADT object'), specifying it returns 'compact JSON tree' and 'XML response with object structure tree'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetObjectStructure' or 'GetNodeStructureLow', which appear to be related structure-retrieval tools.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning it 'Can use session_id and session_state from GetSession to maintain the same session', suggesting a relationship with the GetSession tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetObjectStructure' or 'GetNodeStructureLow', nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or clear prerequisites beyond the session parameters.

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