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. 'Search for objects' gives no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, what permissions might be required, how results are returned, or any rate limits or constraints. The description provides essentially zero behavioral information beyond the basic action implied by the word 'Search'.

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?

While the description is technically concise (only three words), it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single phrase 'Search for objects' fails to provide the necessary context and detail that would make it genuinely helpful. Conciseness should not come at the expense of basic utility - this description is too brief to be useful.

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 that this is a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what objects are being searched, what system or context this operates in, what the search capabilities are, or what format results are returned in. For a tool with this level of complexity and lack of supporting structured data, the description fails to provide even basic contextual information.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema (query, objType, max). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate even though the description provides no parameter-specific information.

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 'Search for objects' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'searchObject'. It provides no specific information about what kind of objects are being searched, in what context, or what resources are involved. While it does include a verb ('Search'), it lacks any distinguishing details that would help differentiate this from other search-related tools in the sibling list.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple other tools in the sibling list that might involve searching (like 'findDefinition', 'findObjectPath', 'packageSearchHelp', etc.), but the description gives no indication of when this specific search tool is appropriate versus those other options. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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