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 clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Retrieve'), which implies non-destructive behavior, and specifies version handling ('active or inactive'). However, it lacks details on permissions required, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the package doesn't exist—important context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise—just one sentence that efficiently combines purpose, resource, examples, and behavioral context. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. This is a model of brevity without sacrificing clarity.

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 adequate basic context for a read operation but lacks completeness. It covers what metadata is retrieved and version support, but doesn't describe the return format, error handling, or system-specific behaviors. For a tool with rich sibling context (many ABAP-related tools), more detail would help the agent understand its role better.

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 fully documents both parameters (package_name and version). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints, or provide examples beyond the schema's details. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all 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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('ABAP package metadata') with specific examples of what metadata is included ('description, super-package, etc.'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'CreatePackage' or 'GetPackageContents' by focusing on metadata retrieval rather than creation or content listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'Get' tools that might retrieve different aspects of packages.

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 context by specifying it 'Supports reading active or inactive version,' which helps distinguish when to use this tool for version-specific metadata retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'GetPackageContents' or 'GetPackageTree' (which are sibling tools), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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