mcp-abap-adt

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states '[read-only]' which clearly indicates non-destructive behavior. It also specifies what information is returned (source code and metadata like package, responsible, description), providing good behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope. The '[read-only]' prefix is front-loaded for immediate behavioral understanding, and every word serves a clear purpose without 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?

For a read-only tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good coverage. It specifies the read-only nature, what data is returned, and the resource type. The main gap is lack of information about return format or potential limitations, but given the tool's simplicity and clear purpose, it's reasonably 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters (class_name and version). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without adding extra value.

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 class source code and metadata'), specifying what information is retrieved (package, responsible, description, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like GetClass by emphasizing source code reading rather than general class information retrieval.

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 for reading ABAP class details, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetClass or ReadBehaviorDefinition. It provides some context through the '[read-only]' prefix, but lacks explicit guidance on use cases or exclusions.

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