mcp-abap-adt

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

The description adds '[read-only]' which indicates non-destructive behavior, a useful disclosure since no annotations are provided. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format (e.g., structure of retrieved contents), leaving behavioral gaps for a tool that queries data.

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 extremely concise—just one sentence with a bracketed modifier—and front-loaded with the key information. There's no wasted verbiage, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 is minimal but covers the basic purpose. It lacks details on what 'contents' include (e.g., rows, fields) or behavioral context, making it adequate but incomplete for informed use without additional documentation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents both parameters ('table_name' and 'max_rows'). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 contents') and target resource ('an ABAP table'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'ReadTable' or 'GetTable', which appear to serve related functions, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 like 'ReadTable', 'GetTable', and 'GetPackageContents' that might retrieve table data in different ways, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific tool.

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