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 statements for a trace,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, size). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical 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, clear sentence: 'Retrieves statements for a trace.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This efficient structure makes it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's intent without unnecessary detail.

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 trace-related operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'statements' are, how they are returned, or any behavioral aspects like side effects or errors. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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, with 'id' documented as 'The ID of the trace' and 'options' as 'Options for retrieving statements.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of options or ID formats. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

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 statements for a trace' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (statements for a trace), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'statements' are (e.g., log entries, SQL queries, or other data) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesList' or 'tracesHitList', which might handle related trace data. This vagueness prevents a higher score.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a trace ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'tracesList' or 'tracesDbAccess'. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate, leading to potential misuse.

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