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. It mentions retrieval but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a codebase.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more structured with context or examples.

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. It doesn't explain what 'main programs' are, the return format, or error cases, making it inadequate for a tool in a complex development environment.

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 the parameter 'includeUrl' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a relationship between 'include' and 'main programs,' so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps.

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 states the tool 'retrieves the main programs for a given include,' which specifies a verb ('retrieves') and resource ('main programs'), but it's vague about what 'main programs' and 'include' mean in this context. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'classIncludes' or 'findDefinition,' leaving ambiguity in purpose.

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. With many sibling tools related to includes, classes, and objects, the description lacks context or exclusions, offering no help in tool selection.

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