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 offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what the output looks like. The description is completely inadequate for a tool with 5 required parameters and no output schema.

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 three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary information, making it inefficient rather than appropriately brief. Every sentence should earn its place, but this description doesn't earn its place by providing useful information.

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 (5 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling tool 'codeCompletion' that suggests alternatives exist), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, when to use it, what parameters mean, or what behavior to expect. This is insufficient for any meaningful agent invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 required parameters, the description provides zero information about what any parameter means or how they should be used. The description 'Performs full code completion' doesn't mention sourceUrl, source, line, column, or patternKey, leaving all parameters completely undocumented.

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 full code completion' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'codeCompletionFull'. It doesn't specify what 'full' means or how it differs from the sibling tool 'codeCompletion' (which presumably offers a different type of completion). The description lacks a clear verb+resource specification and fails to distinguish from alternatives.

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's no mention of when this 'full' completion is appropriate versus the sibling 'codeCompletion' tool, nor any context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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