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. 'Lock an object' implies a state-changing operation, but it fails to describe what locking entails (e.g., exclusive access, preventing modifications), potential side effects (e.g., blocking other users), error conditions, or response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 three words, with no wasted verbiage. It is front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word directly relates to the tool's function, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 insufficient for a tool that performs a state-changing operation like locking. It doesn't explain what locking means in this context, what happens after locking, how to verify success, or how to use the sibling 'unLock' tool. For a mutation tool with no structured support, this description is critically incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter documentation: 'objectUrl' (required URL) and 'accessMode' (optional mode). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid URLs or what access modes might be available. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Lock an object' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without providing meaningful context. It doesn't specify what type of object (e.g., file, record, resource) or what system domain (e.g., version control, database) is involved, nor does it distinguish this tool from its sibling 'unLock' beyond the obvious directional difference.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing write permissions), appropriate contexts (e.g., before editing), or related tools like 'unLock' for reversing the action. Without such information, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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