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 operation, but since no annotations are provided, it carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or what 'ABAP type information' entails in terms of output format or depth.

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 with just one sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource. There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for a tool that retrieves technical data.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval of type info, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra context like examples or edge cases.

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 type information'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetObjectInfo' or 'GetAbapAST' that might also retrieve type-related data, preventing a perfect 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 (e.g., 'GetObjectInfo', 'GetAbapAST'), there's no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this tool.

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