ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the transports are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or if there are side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieves') and object ('transports'). While this efficiency is commendable, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, making it more under-specified than optimally concise.

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 apparent purpose (retrieving data related to transports and configurations), the lack of annotations, absence of an output schema, and minimal description make this incomplete. The description doesn't explain what 'transports' are in this system, what format they're returned in, or how this tool relates to the many other transport-related sibling tools. For a tool that appears to be a core data retrieval operation, this level of documentation is insufficient.

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 clear documentation for both parameters: 'configUri' (required configuration URI) and 'targets' (optional boolean for including target systems). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 transports by configuration' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'transportsByConfig'. It specifies the verb 'retrieves' and resource 'transports', but lacks specificity about what 'transports' are or what 'by configuration' means in this context. Compared to sibling tools like 'getTransportConfiguration', 'transportConfigurations', or 'createTransportsConfig', it doesn't clearly differentiate its specific scope or purpose.

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. With sibling tools like 'transportConfigurations' (likely listing configurations), 'getTransportConfiguration' (getting a specific configuration), and 'createTransportsConfig' (creating configurations), there's no indication of when this retrieval of transports by configuration is appropriate versus other transport-related tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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