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. It only states the retrieval action without detailing aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' entail (e.g., format, depth). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could benefit from slightly more detail to improve completeness without sacrificing brevity.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'details' include, potential side effects, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools. Given the complexity implied by the sibling list, 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter clearly documented. The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as URL format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 states the tool 'retrieves details for a given collection feature,' which provides a clear verb ('retrieves') and resource ('collection feature'). However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like 'featureDetails' or 'findCollectionByUrl,' leaving ambiguity about its specific scope or how it differs from similar 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, such as 'featureDetails' or 'findCollectionByUrl,' which might offer overlapping or related functionality.

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