mcp-abap-adt

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

The description includes '[read-only]' which indicates it's a safe operation, but since no annotations are provided, it carries the full burden. It mentions reading 'source code and metadata' but doesn't specify format, size limits, or error conditions. It adds some behavioral context but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response structure.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, and every word contributes meaning (e.g., '[read-only]' sets expectations, 'source code and metadata' specifies output).

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?

For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what is read but lacks details on return format, error handling, or performance. Given the 2-parameter complexity and 100% schema coverage, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps in behavioral 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain behavior_definition_name format or version implications). 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 verb ('Read') and resource ('ABAP behavior definition source code and metadata'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'Read' siblings like ReadBehaviorImplementation or ReadClass, which follow a similar pattern for different object types.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like GetBehaviorDefinition (which might serve a similar purpose) or clarify if this is for detailed source code versus summary metadata. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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