mcp-abap-adt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'Supports reading active or inactive version', which adds some behavioral context about version handling. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, size), which are important for a retrieval tool.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve ABAP view definition') and adds a useful detail ('Supports reading active or inactive version') 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication, error handling, or output format, which are needed for completeness. However, it's adequate for a simple retrieval tool with good schema coverage.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the two parameters (view_name and version). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints not covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 view definition'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ReadView' or 'GetTable', which might have overlapping retrieval functions for different ABAP objects.

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 implies usage by specifying support for 'active or inactive version', which provides some context for when to choose this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ReadView' or other 'Get' tools in the sibling list, leaving the distinction unclear.

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