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 key behavioral traits: it is read-only (explicitly stated), recursively retrieves objects, includes nested includes, and focuses on 'valid' objects. However, it does not mention potential limitations like performance impacts of recursion, pagination, or error handling, which would be useful for a tool with no annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads key information: read-only nature, recursive retrieval, target objects, and parent scope. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 does a good job covering the tool's purpose and behavior. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., format of retrieved objects) and does not address potential complexities like recursion depth or handling of invalid objects. For a read-only tool with 4 parameters, it is mostly complete but could be enhanced with output expectations.

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 parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameters are used to identify the parent object, but it does not provide additional context like examples of parent types or how parent_name and parent_tech_name differ. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles most of the documentation.

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 ('recursively retrieves'), the target ('all valid ABAP repository objects'), and the scope ('for a given parent including nested includes'). It distinguishes itself from other 'Get' tools by specifying the recursive nature and inclusion of nested objects, which is not present in sibling tools like GetObjectInfo or GetObjectStructure.

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 specifying 'for a given parent (program, function group, etc.)', suggesting it should be used when you need to retrieve all objects under a parent. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetIncludesList (which might retrieve includes without recursion) or GetObjectsByType (which might filter by type rather than parent). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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