mcp-abap-adt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions reading and analysis, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description is too brief to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in a single sentence. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the tool's function. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating input and output aspects, but this is minor.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and output format (beyond 'compact analysis summary'). For a runtime analysis tool, more context on what the summary includes and how to interpret it would be helpful, but it's minimally adequate.

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 75%, with three parameters well-described and one ('top') partially described. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'view' and 'top entries' implicitly but not explaining parameter interactions or semantics. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 profiler trace view') and outcome ('return compact analysis summary'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like RuntimeGetProfilerTraceData (which likely returns raw data) by focusing on analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with RuntimeAnalyzeDump, which might be a similar analysis tool for dumps.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like RuntimeAnalyzeDump (for dump analysis) or RuntimeGetProfilerTraceData (for raw trace data), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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