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. It indicates read-only behavior via '[read-only]' and describes return types, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The mention of 'modifiable and/or released' adds some context, but more behavioral traits (e.g., response format, limitations) would improve transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads key information (read-only, list, scope). It avoids redundancy, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating behavior from returns). 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, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers purpose and basic behavior but lacks details on output format, error cases, or system-specific constraints. For a list tool in a complex environment (SAP), more context would enhance completeness.

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 both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'user' format or 'modifiable_only' implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 verb ('List') and resource ('transport requests'), specifying scope ('for the current or specified user') and return types ('modifiable and/or released workbench and customizing requests'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetTransport' or 'GetObjectsList', which might also retrieve transport-related data, leaving some ambiguity.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'current or specified user' and 'modifiable and/or released' transports, suggesting it's for viewing transport requests. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetTransport' (which might fetch a single transport) or other list tools, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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