Get the AGENTS.md rules block for an ABAP repo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the non-obvious post-condition that the markdown is only returned and must be pasted by the caller, and that it encodes the tool contract rather than project-specific conventions.

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?

A single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the artifact it produces and every clause afterwards carries distinct information (contents, when to use, exclusions, example). Slightly overlong, but no sentence is pure filler.

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?

With an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, and it still covers what is produced, the usage triggers, the boundaries, and an example invocation. For a zero-required-parameter generator, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents each parameter's meaning, setting a baseline of 3. The description goes slightly further by giving a concrete example call ({ target: "Cloud", pairedWith: ["sap-adt-mcp"], runEnabled: true }) that shows how the settings combine, though edition and packagePrefix are not illustrated.

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?

States a specific verb (Generate) and a specific artifact (the ABAP section of AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md), then enumerates its contents. No sibling in the list produces rules documentation, so the agent can distinguish it immediately from list_abap_rules / explain_abap_rule.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('when you set up a new ABAP repo for agentic development' or want team rules referencing abap-mcp tools) plus clear exclusions: it does not write the file, does not read the workspace, and is not a substitute for project conventions. Nothing is left to inference.

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