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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'find path' without detailing what the path represents, how it's returned, error conditions, or any side effects (e.g., read-only vs. mutative). This lack of information fails to compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 'Find path for an object', a single sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, which slightly reduces its effectiveness but still reflects brevity.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., path format, error responses) or behavioral aspects like read-only nature. For a tool with one parameter but missing structured context, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 'objectUrl' clearly documented. The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as URL format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 path for an object' restates the tool name 'findObjectPath' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'find' and resource 'path for an object', but lacks detail on what type of object or path (e.g., file system path, URL path, repository path), and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'searchObject'.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it works for specific object types or requires prior object identification. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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