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 updates source code, implying a mutation, but doesn't clarify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 action. However, for a mutation tool with three parameters, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or expected outcomes, which are crucial for safe and effective use. This makes it adequate but incomplete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any extra meaning or context about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'class_name' and 'test_class_source' or detailing the 'transport_request' usage. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('CDS unit test class local test class source code'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateUnitTest' or 'UpdateLocalTestClass', which might handle similar updates, leaving some ambiguity about its specific scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the test class must already exist or if it's for CDS-specific tests only, and doesn't mention any exclusions or refer to other tools like 'CreateCdsUnitTest' or 'DeleteCdsUnitTest' for related operations.

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