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. It explicitly states '[read-only]', which is helpful for safety, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the structure doesn't exist. The description adds basic context but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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's front-loaded with the key information (read-only operation and resource type), 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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and safety (read-only), but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or system-specific behaviors. Given the complexity of ABAP structures and rich sibling toolset, 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 already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format of metadata returned or clarify 'package, responsible, description, etc.'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('Read') and resource ('ABAP structure definition and metadata'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'CreateStructure' or 'UpdateStructure' by specifying read-only access. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'Read' tools (e.g., 'ReadTable', 'ReadView'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 it's for reading structure definitions and metadata, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetStructure' or 'SearchObject'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.

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