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 the tool 'Supports reading,' which implies it's a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it at least indicates a read action.

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 waste. It front-loads the core purpose and includes essential details without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (a read operation with 2 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter context but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with other tools. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters, including an enum for 'version.' The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'active or inactive version,' which aligns with the schema's enum but doesn't provide additional semantics. Baseline is 3 since 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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('ABAP structure definition'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'CreateStructure' or 'UpdateStructure' by indicating a read operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'Get' tools like 'GetTable' or 'GetClass', which slightly limits sibling differentiation.

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 mentioning support for 'active or inactive version,' which provides some context for when to choose between versions. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other 'Get' tools for different ABAP objects) or any prerequisites. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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