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 states the action but doesn't explain what 'navigates' entails (e.g., whether it changes the current execution context, updates debugger UI, or requires specific permissions). For a debugger operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its effects and requirements.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 debugger navigation tool, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., side effects, error conditions), usage context, and what happens after navigation (e.g., whether variable views update). This makes it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 'urlOrPosition' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid URLs or position formats, or how this relates to stack entries. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added over the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('navigates to') and target ('specific stack entry in the debugger'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling debugger tools like debuggerStep or debuggerStackTrace, but the verb 'navigates' suggests movement within a stack rather than stepping through execution or retrieving stack data.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugger session), exclusions, or related tools like debuggerStep or debuggerStackTrace that might be used in similar debugging contexts.

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