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 mentions that the tool creates parameters and returns a profilerId, but fails to explain critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens after creation (e.g., how the profilerId is used). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's effects.

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 the key action and outcome without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value beyond mentioning a 'profilerId (URI)', nor does it cover behavioral aspects like error handling or integration with other profiling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in context.

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?

The input schema has 14 parameters with only 7% description coverage (only 'description' is described). The tool description does not add any meaningful information about the parameters, such as explaining the boolean flags (e.g., what 'all_misc_abap_statements' controls) or numeric values (e.g., 'max_size_for_trace_file'). This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 ('Create ABAP profiler trace parameters') and the resource ('profilerId (URI) for profiled execution'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'RuntimeRunClassWithProfiling' or 'RuntimeAnalyzeProfilerTrace', which are related to profiling but serve different purposes.

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, such as when profiling is needed or how it relates to other runtime tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or comparisons with siblings, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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