mcp-abap-adt

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

The description adds '[read-only]' which indicates non-destructive behavior, but since no annotations are provided, it doesn't disclose other important traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. It provides basic safety context but lacks depth.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key information and appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return format, error cases, or system-specific behaviors. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps in contextual understanding.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline without 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 domain definition and metadata'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'GetDomain' or 'ReadDataElement' beyond mentioning it's for domains specifically.

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 specifying it reads domain metadata, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetDomain' or 'ReadDataElement'. No guidance on 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.