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 clearly states '[read-only]' upfront, disclosing that it's a safe read operation. However, it does not mention potential constraints like authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the view doesn't exist, leaving some behavioral aspects 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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the key '[read-only]' qualifier. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and what is read, with no wasted verbiage.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and read-only nature well, but could benefit from mentioning output format (e.g., structured metadata) or error handling, which would enhance completeness for a tool without annotations or output schema.

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 documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of metadata fields or clarification on 'version' usage. 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 explicitly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'ABAP view (CDS view) source code and metadata', making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'GetView' by specifying it reads source code and metadata rather than just retrieving view information, and from 'CreateView' or 'UpdateView' by being read-only.

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 ABAP view details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetView' or 'SearchObject'. It provides clear context as a read-only operation for source code and metadata, but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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