mcp-abap-adt

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

The description adds '[read-only]' to indicate it's a safe operation, which is useful since no annotations are provided. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the table doesn't exist. With no annotations, the description carries more burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 front-loads key information (read-only, what it reads). It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from constraints.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and safety but lacks details on return values, error cases, or performance considerations. Given the complexity is low, it's passable but not comprehensive.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of 'active' vs 'inactive' versions. 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 the resource 'ABAP table definition and metadata', specifying what information is retrieved (package, responsible, description, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like GetTable or GetTableContents by focusing on metadata rather than contents or general retrieval, though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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 table metadata, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetTable or GetTableContents. It provides basic context (read-only operation) but lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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