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 states the tool 'retrieves' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not address potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or the format of the retrieved proposal. This leaves 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 unnecessary words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without any structural issues or redundancy.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an ATC exemption proposal entails, the return format, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool with no structured data support, the description should provide more context to compensate.

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 the parameter 'markerId' documented as 'The ID of the marker.' The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond this, such as explaining what a marker is or how to obtain its ID. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 an ATC exemption proposal' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (ATC exemption proposal), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what distinguishes this retrieval from other ATC-related tools like 'atcRequestExemption' or 'atcChangeContact', making it vague in the context of its siblings.

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, such as needing a markerId, or differentiate it from other ATC tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.

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