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. It states the tool retrieves definitions and supports version selection, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. This is insufficient for a tool that likely interacts with a complex ABAP system.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve ABAP table definition') and adds necessary detail ('Supports reading active or inactive version') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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 complexity of ABAP systems and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'table definition' includes (e.g., fields, keys), how errors are handled, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters, including a default and enum for 'version.' The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'active or inactive version,' but doesn't elaborate on semantics like format constraints for 'table_name' beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('ABAP table definition'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetTableContents' or 'ReadTable', which likely retrieve different aspects of tables.

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 suggests when to choose between versions. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetTableContents' or 'ReadTable' from the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer context.

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