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 states 'Retrieves a list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, how results are formatted (e.g., pagination, sorting), rate limits, or if it's limited to specific repository types (e.g., local vs. remote). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of Git repositories'), making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the return format (e.g., what fields are included in the list) and doesn't address potential complexities like authentication or scope, which could be important for an agent to use it correctly in a broader workflow.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids mentioning any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since it doesn't mislead or omit necessary parameter information.

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 clearly states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of Git repositories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitExternalRepoInfo' or 'remoteRepoInfo' that might also provide repository information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 sibling tools like 'gitExternalRepoInfo' and 'remoteRepoInfo' that might retrieve specific repository details, there's no indication of whether this is for listing all repositories, filtered ones, or how it differs from other Git-related tools.

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