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 states 'Retrieves a list', implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what constitutes a 'dump' (e.g., error logs, data exports). This leaves critical behavioral traits undefined for a tool with potential data access implications.

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 zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieves a list of dumps'), making it immediately clear in structure. No extraneous information or redundancy is present.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It fails to clarify what 'dumps' are, their format, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps. While the parameter is well-documented in the schema, the overall context for selection and invocation is inadequate.

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 one optional 'query' parameter documented as filtering dumps. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, as it does not elaborate on query syntax or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter details without description enhancement.

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 'Retrieves a list of dumps' restates the tool name 'dumps' in a tautological manner. It specifies the verb 'retrieves' and resource 'dumps', but lacks specificity about what 'dumps' are in this context, making it vague. It does not distinguish from siblings, many of which are also retrieval operations (e.g., 'gitRepos', 'tracesList').

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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools for data retrieval (e.g., 'tracesList', 'gitRepos'), the absence of differentiation leaves the agent without usage direction.

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