ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Performs ADT discovery' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Performs ADT discovery') and contains no unnecessary elaboration. For a zero-parameter tool, this brevity is appropriate rather than under-specified.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description fails to provide adequate context for understanding what this tool does. 'ADT discovery' is ambiguous without explanation of what ADT refers to or what discovery entails. The description doesn't compensate for the missing structured information that would help an agent use this 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter documentation since there are no parameters to document. It appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters.

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 'Performs ADT discovery' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what ADT discovery entails, what resources are involved, or what the outcome is. While it includes a verb ('Performs'), it lacks specificity about what exactly is being discovered.

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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'searchObject', 'findDefinition', 'objectTypes'), there's no indication of what makes 'adtDiscovery' distinct or in what contexts it should be preferred over other discovery/search-related tools.

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