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. It states 'Retrieves' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what 'worklists' contain (e.g., findings, tasks). For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters (one required), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'worklists' are, their format, or how parameters like 'includeExempted' affect results. For a tool in a complex domain (ATC) with many siblings, more context is needed for effective use.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying retrieval of 'worklists' (which might relate to 'runResultId'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 worklists' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (ATC worklists), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'atcCheckVariant', 'atcCustomizing', or 'atcUsers', leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this retrieval operation from other ATC-related tools.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an ATC run result), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools like 'atcCheckVariant' or 'atcCustomizing'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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