mcp-abap-adt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context about ADT returning an error, which is useful for understanding failure modes. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response behavior, leaving gaps for a mutation 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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured, with every sentence earning its place.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the tool's purpose and a key limitation, but as a mutation tool without annotations, it could benefit from more detail on outcomes or error handling to be fully complete.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'run_id'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format or constraints, meeting the baseline for high 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 resource ('ABAP Unit test run'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateCdsUnitTest' or 'UpdateUnitTest' (which might be a sibling if it exists), leaving some ambiguity about 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?

The description includes a note about ADT not supporting updates, which hints at a limitation, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'CreateUnitTest' or 'RunUnitTest'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or clear context are mentioned.

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