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', implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify permissions needed, error conditions (e.g., invalid parent variable), or output format (e.g., structured data or raw text). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to handle the tool effectively.

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. It is front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves') and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 debugger operations and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'child variables' entail (e.g., properties, nested objects), how results are structured, or error handling. For a tool in a debugger context with no structured support, more detail is needed to guide an agent effectively.

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%, with the parameter 'parent' documented as 'The parent variable name.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid variable names or how to format the array. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 verb ('retrieves') and resource ('child variables of a debugger variable'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerVariables' or 'debuggerStackTrace', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific retrieval function versus others.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugger session), context (e.g., after setting breakpoints), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'debuggerVariables', which might retrieve different variable data.

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