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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Runs a class' gives no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it executes code, returns output, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or handles errors. This is completely inadequate for a tool that presumably performs some execution operation.

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, but this brevity comes at the cost of being severely under-specified. While technically 'front-loaded' (the entire description is the first and only statement), it lacks the substance needed to be genuinely helpful. The structure is minimal but not effective.

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 tool's likely complexity (executing/running something), complete absence of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and 74 sibling tools in a development environment context, this description is completely inadequate. It provides none of the contextual information needed to understand what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect.

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 0%, meaning the single parameter 'className' has no documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about this parameter - what format it expects, what values are valid, or what a 'class' represents in this context. With one undocumented parameter and no compensation in the description, this fails to add any semantic value.

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 'Runs a class' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'runClass' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'runs' means in this context (execution, testing, compilation?) or what resource is being acted upon beyond the generic term 'class'. Compared to sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'debuggerAttach', this provides no differentiation.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like 'debuggerStep', 'runQuery', or 'syntaxCheckCode'), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'runClass'.

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