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 the return format ('parsed JSON payload') but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid trace IDs. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose, parameters (implicitly through view options), and return format. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic operation. It mentions the return format but doesn't explain error handling, authentication, or detailed behavioral context. Given the complexity, it should provide more guidance about when and how to use the tool effectively.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the three view options and that it reads 'by trace id/uri', but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. 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'), resource ('profiler trace data'), and scope ('by trace id/uri') with specific view options ('hitlist, statements, or db accesses'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like RuntimeListProfilerTraceFiles (which lists files) and RuntimeAnalyzeProfilerTrace (which analyzes rather than reads data).

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 when you need parsed trace data for a specific trace, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like RuntimeAnalyzeProfilerTrace or RuntimeListProfilerTraceFiles. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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