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. It fails to describe any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, how it interacts with debugger state, or what happens after stepping. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about the tool's behavior.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the action, though it lacks detail. While overly brief, it does not include unnecessary information, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it affects debugger state, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely interacts with a debugging session, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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%, meaning the input schema fully documents the parameters 'steptype' and 'url'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining step types or URL usage. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, 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 'Performs a debugger step' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'debuggerStep' without specifying what a debugger step actually does or what resource it acts upon. It provides no differentiation from sibling debugger tools like debuggerAttach, debuggerSetBreakpoints, or debuggerVariables, leaving the purpose vague.

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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling debugger tools that might handle related operations. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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