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 of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states '[read-only]' which clearly indicates non-destructive behavior, and mentions what information is retrieved (source code and metadata examples). However, it doesn't describe potential limitations like error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits that would be helpful for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, behavioral characteristic (read-only), and scope (what information is retrieved). Every word earns its place with no wasted text or redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the essential information: it's read-only, specifies what resource it operates on, and indicates what information is returned. However, without an output schema, some additional detail about the return format or structure would be helpful for 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 already fully documents all three parameters with clear descriptions and enum values. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to since the schema coverage is comprehensive. This meets the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('ABAP function module source code and metadata'), including examples of metadata like package, responsible, and description. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like GetFunctionModule (which might retrieve different information) and Create/Update/DeleteFunctionModule (which are write operations).

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 by specifying it's for reading source code and metadata, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetFunctionModule or other 'Read' tools. However, the '[read-only]' prefix provides clear guidance about its safe, non-destructive nature compared to write operations.

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