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 clarifies this is a safe read operation with no destructive effects. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when reading inactive versions. The description adds some value but leaves important behavioral context unspecified.

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 core functionality. It's front-loaded with the read-only annotation and verb+resource information. 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 with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and safety profile but lacks information about return values, error handling, and specific behavioral constraints. The description doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations and output schema documentation.

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 (service_definition_name and version). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions reading 'source code and metadata' which gives context for what the parameters help retrieve, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for the parameters themselves.

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 service definition source code and metadata'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like CreateServiceDefinition and DeleteServiceDefinition by specifying it's read-only. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from GetServiceDefinition, which might have similar functionality.

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 like GetServiceDefinition or other 'Read' tools. It mentions the tool is read-only, but this is already implied by the name and doesn't help choose between similar tools. No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative recommendations are included.

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