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. 'Loads object types' gives no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally—whether it's a read operation, a cache operation, a refresh, or something else. It doesn't mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what 'loading' entails. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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—just two words—and front-loaded with the core action. There is zero wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. While it may be too brief for clarity, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word serves a purpose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. 'Loads object types' is too vague to understand the tool's behavior, return values, or context. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more operational detail to compensate, but it fails to do so.

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, meaning the schema fully documents that there are no inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict or confuse the parameterless nature, though it could theoretically mention why no parameters are needed.

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 'Loads object types' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'loadTypes' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'loads' and resource 'object types' but provides no additional context about what 'object types' are or what 'loading' entails. This is a minimal restatement rather than a helpful explanation.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include 'objectTypes' (which likely retrieves object types) and other related tools, there is no indication of when 'loadTypes' is appropriate versus other options. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's specific use case.

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