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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieve' and 'browsing,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm safety aspects like whether it's non-destructive or has rate limits. It lacks details on response format, pagination, or error handling. The description adds some context (e.g., hierarchical, for ABAP objects) but falls short of fully compensating for the absence of 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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage context. The first sentence states the core action and system, and the second adds browsing context. There's no unnecessary repetition or fluff, making it appropriately sized for its informational value.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and high-level usage but lacks behavioral details (e.g., safety, response structure) and explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description could better address gaps in behavioral transparency and usage guidelines to be fully adequate.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'object_search_pattern' or 'preselection' further). However, it provides high-level context ('browsing ABAP objects by package, group, type, etc.') that aligns with parameters like 'facet_order,' justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieve hierarchical virtual folder contents from ADT information system.' It specifies the resource (virtual folder contents) and the system context (ADT information system). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like GetPackageContents or GetPackageTree, which might also retrieve hierarchical content, though the mention of 'ABAP objects by package, group, type, etc.' hints at its specific focus.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'Used for browsing ABAP objects by package, group, type, etc.,' which implies a browsing context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetPackageContents or SearchObject. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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