mcp-abap-adt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature upfront and describes the recursive traversal behavior, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like (though no output schema exists).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key behavioral trait (recursive traversal) in just two concise sentences with zero wasted words, making it easy for an agent 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 adequately covers the basic operation and recursion but lacks details on response structure, error handling, or system-specific constraints that would help an agent invoke it more reliably.

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 all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how recursion works with max_depth or what 'objects' specifically include.

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 specific action ('Retrieve objects inside an ABAP package as a flat list') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the flat list format and recursive traversal capability, unlike other 'Get' tools like GetPackageTree which likely returns hierarchical data.

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 clear context about when to use it (for retrieving package contents with recursive options) but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like GetPackageTree for hierarchical views, though the flat list format is implied as a distinguishing factor.

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