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 the tool executes a class with profiling and returns IDs, but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's a read-only or mutating operation, potential side effects (e.g., performance impact), error handling, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool with 15 parameters and no output schema.

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 core action and return values. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating execution details from output specifics.

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 complexity (15 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the behavioral context, parameter meanings, or output structure, making it inadequate for an agent to use this tool effectively without additional documentation.

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 low at 13%, with only 'class_name' and 'description' having descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, failing to explain the purpose of the many boolean parameters (e.g., 'all_procedural_units', 'sql_trace') or numeric ones (e.g., 'max_size_for_trace_file'), leaving them 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 ('Execute ABAP class with profiler enabled') and the return values ('return created profilerId + traceId'), which is specific and informative. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'RuntimeAnalyzeProfilerTrace' or 'RuntimeCreateProfilerTraceParameters', which are related but distinct operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions enabling a profiler but doesn't explain prerequisites, such as needing a valid class name or when profiling is appropriate compared to other runtime tools like 'RuntimeAnalyzeDump' or 'RunUnitTest'.

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