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 indicates read-only operation via '[read-only]' and describes what metadata is returned, but does not disclose behavioral traits like error handling, permissions required, or response format. It adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotations.

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 is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and every word earns its place by specifying the tool's purpose and scope.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or advanced usage, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a read operation tool in a complex ABAP environment.

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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 package definition and metadata'), specifying what data is retrieved (super-package, responsible, description, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'GetPackage' or 'GetPackageContents' by focusing on metadata rather than contents or tree structure.

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 for reading package metadata, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetPackage' or 'GetPackageTree'. It provides some context with the version parameter but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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