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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Deletes breakpoints' implies a destructive mutation, but it fails to specify permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, effects on debugging sessions, or error handling. It adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with just two words, 'Deletes breakpoints', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but for this dimension alone, it scores high due to zero verbosity.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and destructive nature), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output, error cases, and integration with sibling tools. For a mutation tool with multiple inputs, more context is needed to guide 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%, with all 6 parameters documented in the schema (e.g., 'breakpoint', 'debuggingMode'). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, not explaining parameter relationships or usage. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Deletes breakpoints' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'debuggerDeleteBreakpoints'. It provides no additional specificity about what kind of breakpoints (e.g., in a debugger session, for specific code), nor does it differentiate from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' or 'debuggerDeleteListener'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active debugger session), context (e.g., after setting breakpoints), or related tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' for creation or 'debuggerDeleteListener' for other deletions. It lacks any usage context.

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