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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Performs a package search help') without detailing what the tool does behaviorally—such as whether it returns search results, provides documentation, requires authentication, has side effects, or handles errors. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage, as it omits critical operational context.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words, making it efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than optimally concise—it lacks essential details that would make it more helpful. Despite this, it is front-loaded and wastes no space, earning a high score for brevity.

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 fails to explain what the tool returns, its behavioral implications, or usage context. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output information, the description should provide more operational clarity to be considered adequate.

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 description does not mention any parameters, but the input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both 'type' (required) and 'name' (optional). Since the schema fully describes the parameters, the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to compensate 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 'Performs a package search help' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'packageSearchHelp' with minimal elaboration. It lacks specificity about what 'package search help' entails, such as whether it searches for packages, provides help about searching packages, or assists with package-related queries. While it includes a verb ('Performs'), the resource and purpose remain vague, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'searchObject' or 'findDefinition'.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it refer to sibling tools that might handle similar functions (e.g., 'searchObject' for general searches). This absence leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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