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 states '[read-only]' upfront, indicating it's a safe operation, and mentions filtering by type, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. For a search tool with no annotations, this is minimal disclosure, leaving gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and lists parameters efficiently in a single sentence. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes). Overall, it's concise with minimal waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate for a basic search tool but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks details on return format, error handling, or performance constraints. For a tool with 3 parameters and many siblings, more context would help the agent use it effectively.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by noting that 'object_name' can be 'with or without mask' and that 'object_type' filters results, but these are largely implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 tool's purpose: 'Search for ABAP objects by name pattern.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('ABAP objects'), and scope ('by name pattern'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetObjectsByType' or 'GetObjectsList', which appear to serve similar retrieval functions, so it misses the top 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 like 'GetObjectsByType' and 'GetObjectsList' that likely retrieve ABAP objects, there's no indication of when this search tool is preferred, what prerequisites exist, or any exclusions. This leaves usage context unclear.

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