mcp-abap-adt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states '[read-only]', clarifying it's a safe operation with no mutations, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'metadata' specifically includes (beyond the examples given).

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 front-loads key information ('[read-only]') and clearly states the action and scope, making it easy 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-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and safety but lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of ABAP systems and many sibling tools, more context would be beneficial.

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 adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no extra syntax or format details). This meets the baseline 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 verb ('Read') and resource ('ABAP interface source code and metadata'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetInterface' or 'ReadClass', which likely serve similar read purposes for different ABAP objects.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'GetInterface', 'ReadClass', 'SearchObject'), there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or distinctions—leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.

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