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. It mentions 'evaluates' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or mutating, what permissions are required, if it has side effects, rate limits, or what the output entails. This leaves critical operational details unclear for a tool that likely interacts with code refactoring.

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 waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 code refactoring, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the evaluation returns (e.g., success metrics, warnings), behavioral constraints, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.

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 parameters 'uri' and 'range' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how these parameters relate to the evaluation process or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Evaluates an extract method refactoring' states the action (evaluates) and target (extract method refactoring), but is vague about what 'evaluates' entails—it doesn't specify whether it checks feasibility, calculates metrics, or simulates outcomes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'extractMethodExecute' and 'extractMethodPreview' by implying a preparatory step, but lacks specificity about the resource or scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for evaluation, but doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., before execution), exclusions, or how it differs from 'extractMethodPreview'. Without context, an agent might struggle to choose between this and its siblings.

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