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 states it's a read operation and returns a summary, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'compact analysis' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that processes runtime dumps.

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: action, resource, and outcome. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'runtime dump' is, what 'analysis summary' contains, or how results are formatted. Given the complexity of runtime analysis and lack of structured data, more context is needed for effective use.

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 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'view' modes and 'include_payload' implicitly, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Read runtime dump by ID') and the outcome ('return compact analysis summary with key fields'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'RuntimeGetDumpById' by emphasizing analysis and summarization, though it could be more explicit about the difference.

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 'RuntimeGetDumpById' or 'RuntimeAnalyzeProfilerTrace'. It mentions a 'view' parameter with modes but doesn't explain when each mode is appropriate, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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