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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. 'Checks' could imply a read-only operation, but this isn't stated explicitly. There's no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it performs validation, returns status information, requires authentication, has side effects, or what format the results take. For a tool with 3 parameters including optional credentials, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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?

While technically concise with just 4 words, this description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It fails to provide necessary information about what the tool actually does. Conciseness should not come at the expense of clarity - every sentence should earn its place, but this single sentence doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful guidance to an AI agent trying to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 of a Git repository checking operation with 3 parameters (including authentication credentials), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'checking' entails, what information is returned, whether authentication is required, what happens if credentials are omitted, or how this differs from other Git tools. For a tool that likely performs a non-trivial operation, this minimal description leaves the agent guessing about fundamental aspects of the tool's behavior and purpose.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here. The description doesn't explain how these parameters relate to the 'checking' operation.

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 'Checks a Git repository' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'checkRepo'. It doesn't specify what 'checks' means in this context - whether it's verifying repository health, validating permissions, examining commit history, or something else. While it mentions the resource (Git repository), the verb is too vague to distinguish this from sibling Git tools like gitPullRepo or gitRepos.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple Git-related tools in the sibling list (gitCreateRepo, gitPullRepo, gitRepos, gitUnlinkRepo, pushRepo, stageRepo, switchRepoBranch, remoteRepoInfo), but the description offers no context about when checkRepo is appropriate versus these other Git operations. No prerequisites, conditions, or comparison points are mentioned.

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