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 but provides almost none. 'Checks a Git repository' gives no insight into what the tool actually does, what it returns, whether it modifies anything, what authentication is required, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent cannot understand what operation will be performed or what to expect as a result.

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 ('Checks a Git repository.') but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficient. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is the purpose), it fails to provide necessary information. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity, and this description is too minimal to be helpful.

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 that this is a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'checking' means, what the tool returns, when to use it, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool that presumably performs some operation on Git repositories, this minimal description leaves the agent with insufficient information to understand or use 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (repo, user, password) with their types and optionality. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema 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 'Checks a Git repository' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'checkRepo'. While it indicates the tool operates on Git repositories, it doesn't specify what 'checks' means - whether it's checking status, health, connectivity, permissions, or something else. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling Git tools like gitRepos, gitPullRepo, or gitExternalRepoInfo.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or scenarios where checkRepo would be appropriate versus other Git-related tools in the sibling list. There's no indication of what problem this tool solves or when an agent should select it.

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