ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('retrieves'), implying a read-only operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'ATC customizing information' entails (e.g., format, scope, or whether it's static vs. dynamic data), which is inadequate for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's function without fluff, which is ideal for conciseness given the simple nature of the tool.

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 is incomplete for effective use. It doesn't explain what 'ATC customizing information' includes (e.g., configuration settings, user data, or system parameters), how results are structured, or any limitations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and outputs.

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 schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is given as it efficiently handles the no-parameter case without unnecessary elaboration.

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 'Retrieves ATC customizing information' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (ATC customizing information), providing a basic understanding of purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'atcCheckVariant', 'atcContactUri', or 'atcWorklists' that also relate to ATC functionality, leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this tool.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., whether it's for general ATC settings vs. specific configurations), leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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