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 only states the action ('Get code completion suggestions') without any details on how it behaves—such as whether it's read-only or mutative, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what the output looks like. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for its brevity.

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 a code completion tool with 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an AI agent to understand how to use the tool effectively, what it returns, or its behavioral constraints, making it inadequate for the tool's likely functionality.

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 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean (e.g., 'sourceUrl', 'source', 'line', 'column'), their expected formats, or how they influence the completion suggestions. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Get code completion suggestions' restates the tool name 'codeCompletion' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'code completion suggestions', but lacks detail on what this entails (e.g., for what language, IDE, or context), and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'codeCompletionElement' or 'codeCompletionFull'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'codeCompletionElement' and 'codeCompletionFull' present, there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected over them.

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