mcp-abap-adt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool starts a test run and returns a run_id, but fails to mention critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, stating the main action and output in two sentences without unnecessary details. It efficiently communicates the essential information, though it could be slightly improved by integrating usage context to enhance clarity.

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 with 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, and output structure (beyond mentioning run_id), making it incomplete for effective tool invocation in this context.

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 description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the input schema provides. With a schema description coverage of 50%, the description does not compensate for undocumented parameters like 'scope', 'risk_level', and 'duration'. However, since the schema covers the core 'tests' parameter well, it meets the baseline score of 3 without adding extra 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 ('Start an ABAP Unit test run') and the target ('for provided class test definitions'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'CreateUnitTest' or 'GetUnitTestStatus', which might handle test creation or status checking, so it lacks sibling distinction for 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, such as 'CreateUnitTest' for setup or 'GetUnitTestStatus' for checking results. It mentions returning a run_id for status/result queries, but this is more about output than usage context, leaving the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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