mcp-abap-adt

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations would provide. The '[read-only]' prefix explicitly declares safety (no mutations), which is crucial since annotations are absent. It also specifies what metadata is returned (package, responsible, description, etc.), giving the agent insight into the tool's behavior and output format.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that front-loads the key information (read-only nature, target resource, and metadata details). Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 does well by declaring the read-only nature and specifying what metadata is returned. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like access permissions, error conditions, or whether it returns full source code versus just metadata, leaving some gaps in 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (function_group_name and version). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra semantic 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 specific action ('Read'), the target resource ('ABAP function group source code and metadata'), and lists key metadata fields (package, responsible, description). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'GetFunctionGroup' by specifying it reads source code and metadata, not just basic information.

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 context through the '[read-only]' prefix and by listing what metadata is returned, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetFunctionGroup' or 'GetObjectInfo'. It provides some guidance through the parameter descriptions but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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