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 states 'retrieves,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns a list or single item, or involves any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves key behavioral traits unclear.

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's front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves'), making it easy to scan and understand quickly. This is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'syntax check types' are or what the return value looks like (e.g., a list of strings or objects). For a retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, more context would improve completeness.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info, and it correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 'Retrieves syntax check types' states a clear verb ('retrieves') and resource ('syntax check types'), but it's vague about what 'syntax check types' actually are (e.g., categories, configurations, or options). It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl', which also relate to syntax checking but have different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., before or after other syntax checks), or sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' that might be used for different aspects of syntax checking. Without this, users must infer usage from the name alone.

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