mcp-abap-adt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates this is a read operation ('Retrieve'), but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains (e.g., format, whether it includes detailed logs). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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. There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what 'status and result' entail, error cases). For a retrieval tool with no annotations, it should provide more context about output and usage constraints.

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 the single parameter 'run_id' well-documented in the schema as 'Run identifier returned by RunUnitTest.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 the resource ('ABAP Unit test run status and result'), specifying it's for a previously started run identified by run_id. It distinguishes from siblings like GetUnitTestStatus or GetUnitTestResult by mentioning both status and result, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from them.

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 mentions the tool is for a 'previously started run_id', implying it should be used after RunUnitTest, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like GetUnitTestStatus or GetCdsUnitTest. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisite checks are stated.

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