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. 'Sets breakpoints' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether breakpoints persist across sessions, what happens on errors, or rate limits. It lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema.

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?

While concise with two words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to front-load essential context (e.g., resource or scope), leaving the agent with minimal actionable information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity.

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 mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, or return values. Given the complexity and lack of structured support, the description fails to provide sufficient guidance.

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%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., how 'breakpoints' array relates to 'debuggingMode') or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Sets breakpoints' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It doesn't specify what resource breakpoints are set on (e.g., in a debugging session, for a specific program), nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerDeleteBreakpoints' or 'debuggerListeners'. The purpose is stated but lacks specificity and differentiation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugging session), exclusions, or related tools like 'debuggerDeleteBreakpoints' or 'debuggerAttach'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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