ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'evaluates' without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't specify if this is a read-only analysis, what the evaluation outputs (e.g., feasibility, impacts), or any side effects, permissions, or constraints, leaving critical behavior opaque.

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. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary detail for a tool with behavioral complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely analyzes rename operations. It fails to explain what evaluation entails, what results to expect, or how it differs from siblings like 'renameExecute', leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain how parameters relate to the rename evaluation (e.g., that they define the target location). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Evaluates a rename refactoring' restates the tool name 'renameEvaluate' without specifying what evaluation entails or what resource is being evaluated. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'renameExecute' or 'renamePreview' beyond the generic 'evaluate' verb, making it vague about the actual 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 like 'renameExecute' or 'renamePreview'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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