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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to do so—it does not indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens upon success/failure. The description lacks any behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by 'saves'.

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—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail in other dimensions. Every word earns its place by stating the core action, but it may be overly minimal.

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 tool that saves settings (likely a mutation with persistence implications), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or what is returned. It does not compensate for the lack of structured data, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'settings' documented as 'The debugger settings.' The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter information.

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 'Saves debugger settings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'debuggerSaveSettings' without adding meaningful specificity. It identifies the verb ('saves') and resource ('debugger settings'), but lacks detail about what settings are saved, where they are saved, or how this differs from sibling debugger tools like debuggerSetBreakpoints or debuggerSetVariableValue.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might be related, such as other debugger tools for managing breakpoints or variables. This leaves the agent with no information to make an informed selection.

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