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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'reading' and supports 'active or inactive version,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, size). This leaves gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another adding usage detail. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from constraints.

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 is moderately complete for a read tool. It covers the basic action and parameter scope but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, response format) and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of structured output information, leaving room for improvement.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters, including an enum for 'version.' The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating 'active or inactive version' but doesn't provide additional context like examples or edge cases. 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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieve ABAP service definition definition.' It specifies the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('ABAP service definition'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ReadServiceDefinition' or 'GetServiceBinding,' which might offer similar retrieval functions, leaving some ambiguity.

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 mentioning 'Supports reading active or inactive version,' which suggests when to use different parameter settings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'ReadServiceDefinition' or other 'Get' tools in the sibling list, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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