mcp-abap-adt

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

The description includes '[read-only]' which indicates it's a safe read operation, adding value since no annotations are provided. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' entail (e.g., format, depth). For a tool with no annotations, this is minimal but not misleading.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key information (read-only and retrieval action), making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and safety hint, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or usage context, which could help an agent invoke it more 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?

The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'transaction_name'. This meets the baseline since the schema fully documents the parameter, but no extra context (e.g., format examples, constraints) is provided.

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 transaction details'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like GetObjectInfo or GetTable, which also retrieve details about different ABAP objects, leaving room for improvement in distinguishing its specific scope.

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 GetObjectInfo or GetTable that retrieve different types of ABAP object details, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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