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. It only states the action ('retrieves') without detailing permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., list of revisions with timestamps). For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 is front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves revisions'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's 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 complexity of retrieving revisions (which may involve version history or change tracking), the description is incomplete. No annotations or output schema exist to clarify behavior or return values, and the description lacks details on what revisions are, how they are formatted, or any constraints. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

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 the input schema already documents both parameters ('objectUrl' and 'clsInclude') with descriptions. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining the format of 'objectUrl' or the purpose of 'clsInclude' in the context of revisions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 states the tool 'retrieves revisions for an object,' which clearly indicates a read operation. However, it lacks specificity about what type of object (e.g., code, document, configuration) or what 'revisions' entail (e.g., version history, change logs), and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'objectStructure' or 'getObjectSource' that might also retrieve object-related data.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an object URL, or compare it to other tools that might handle object history or versioning. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection among the many sibling tools.

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