mcp-abap-adt

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

The description includes '[read-only]' at the start, which indicates it's a safe operation that doesn't modify data, adding value beyond annotations (which are none). However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format details, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 key information (read-only, retrieval action, data included). There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured by separating usage hints, though it's already concise.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete: it covers the purpose and read-only nature but lacks details on return values, error cases, or system-specific behaviors. For a retrieval tool with 3 parameters, it's adequate but has clear gaps in contextual guidance.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any extra semantic meaning beyond implying retrieval of transport info, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 transport request information'), specifying what data is included (metadata, included objects, status) and the source (SAP system). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListTransports' or 'GetTransport' (if there were multiple transport-related tools), though the specificity helps.

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 like 'ListTransports' (a sibling tool that likely lists transports without details) or other retrieval tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid transport number, and doesn't mention exclusions or when not to use it.

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