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 states 'Stages changes' but does not explain what this entails (e.g., modifies the Git index, requires authentication via user/password parameters, or affects repository state). It lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to the basic understanding of 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 a Git staging operation (a mutation with potential authentication needs), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral aspects like what 'stages' means, authentication requirements, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use the tool correctly in context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all parameters (repo, user, password) with their types and optionality. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining the 'repo' object structure or when user/password are needed. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 action ('Stages changes') and resource ('in a Git repository'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'stages changes' entails (e.g., adding files to the staging area) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'pushRepo' or 'gitPullRepo', which are related Git operations. This makes it vague but not tautological.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., after making local changes, before committing), exclusions, or related tools like 'pushRepo' for pushing staged changes. This leaves the agent without context for proper tool selection.

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