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. It mentions validation but doesn't specify what happens during validation (e.g., returns errors, warnings, or a success status), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any permissions/rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 complexity (validation with one parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral outcomes, or usage context, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool effectively.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter 'options'. It doesn't explain what 'options' should contain (e.g., validation rules, object type, or parameter values), leaving the parameter's meaning and format ambiguous beyond the schema's basic type.

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 tool validates parameters for a new ABAP object, which provides a clear purpose (verb+resource). However, it's somewhat vague about what 'validate' entails (e.g., syntax, semantics, or constraints) and doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'checkRepo' that might also involve validation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., before object creation), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools such as 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'checkRepo', leaving usage context unclear.

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