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 full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Retrieves' suggests a read operation, but there's no information about permissions required, rate limits, side effects, error conditions, or what format the fix proposals come in. The description doesn't explain what happens when proposals are retrieved or how they might be used.

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 at just two words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of clarity rather than being efficiently informative. There's no wasted text, but also insufficient 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?

For a tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, provides no parameter guidance, offers no behavioral context, and gives no indication of what results to expect.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 4 required parameters (url, source, line, column), the description provides zero information about what these parameters mean or how they're used. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of what inputs are needed to retrieve fix proposals.

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 fix proposals' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'fixProposals' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions a verb ('retrieves') and resource ('fix proposals'), but doesn't explain what fix proposals are, what they're for, or how they differ from similar tools like 'fixEdits' or 'atcExemptProposal' in the sibling list.

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 multiple related tools in the sibling list (fixEdits, atcExemptProposal, atcChangeContact, etc.), there's no indication of what problem this tool solves, what prerequisites exist, or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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