ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'executes' a refactoring, implying a mutation or write operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, side effects, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies code.

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 no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 refactoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens upon execution, such as changes to code or return values, nor does it provide context about dependencies or error cases. This leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

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 'refactoring' described as 'The refactoring object.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as what constitutes a valid refactoring object or its expected format. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool 'executes an extract method refactoring,' which provides a clear verb ('executes') and resource ('extract method refactoring'). However, it lacks specificity about what 'extract method refactoring' entails and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'extractMethodEvaluate' or 'extractMethodPreview,' making it somewhat 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a refactoring object from 'extractMethodEvaluate' or 'extractMethodPreview,' or when to choose it over other refactoring tools like 'renameExecute.' This absence of context leaves usage unclear.

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