mcp-abap-adt

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

The description adds '[read-only]' to indicate non-destructive behavior, which is valuable since no annotations are provided to convey this. However, it lacks details on other behavioral traits: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the API's constraints (e.g., supported SQL dialects, timeout risks). For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate disclosure but misses key operational context.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the key information ('[read-only] Execute freestyle SQL queries') and specifies the API, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose.

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 (executing arbitrary SQL queries), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and safety ('read-only'), but fails to address critical aspects like return format, error cases, or performance implications. For a tool with potential side effects (e.g., heavy queries), more context would be needed for safe and effective use.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters ('sql_query' and 'row_number') with descriptions and defaults. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid SQL queries or advice on row_number usage. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('Execute') and resource ('freestyle SQL queries via SAP ADT Data Preview API'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'GetTableContents' or 'SearchObject', which might also retrieve data, though those are more structured. The '[read-only]' prefix reinforces the action but isn't fully integrated into the purpose statement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for querying or retrieving data (e.g., 'GetTableContents', 'SearchObject'), there is no indication of scenarios where freestyle SQL is preferred over structured queries, prerequisites like database access, or limitations such as performance impacts. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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