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 results are returned, or any rate limits. The description is too vague to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 extremely concise with just three words, which could be seen as efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, as it lacks necessary details for effective tool use. It is front-loaded but insufficient in content.

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 7 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide the necessary context for the agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly or interpret its results, making it incomplete for practical use.

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 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about any parameters. It does not explain what 'url', 'source', 'line', 'startCol', 'endCol', 'implementation', or 'mainProgram' mean or how they should be used, leaving all parameters semantically undocumented.

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 'Find symbol definition' restates the tool name 'findDefinition' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. While it hints at locating definitions for symbols, it lacks specificity about what a 'symbol' means in this context (e.g., code identifiers, variables, functions) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchObject' or 'ddicElement', which may have overlapping purposes.

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. With many sibling tools related to code analysis and object management (e.g., 'searchObject', 'codeCompletion', 'ddicElement'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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