mcp-abap-adt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states '[read-only]' at the beginning, clearly indicating it is a safe read operation with no destructive effects. This is crucial behavioral information that helps the agent understand it won't modify data. However, it doesn't mention other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 that is front-loaded with the key information ('[read-only] Read ABAP metadata extension...'). It wastes no words and clearly communicates the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (read-only operation with 2 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, behavioral safety, and scope, but could benefit from mentioning output format or error cases. However, it adequately supports agent usage in context.

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 both parameters (metadata_extension_name and version). The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage notes. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('ABAP metadata extension (DDLX) source code and metadata'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'GetMetadataExtension' by specifying it reads source code and metadata details (package, responsible, description, etc.). It uses precise terminology that matches the domain context.

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 what it reads (source code and metadata like package, responsible, description), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'GetMetadataExtension' or other read tools. It provides some context but lacks explicit guidance on selection criteria or exclusions.

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