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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'retrieves', implying a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema.

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 appropriately sized for its minimal content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 (4 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose beyond the name, provide usage guidelines, detail parameters, or describe expected behavior or outputs, making it inadequate for effective agent use.

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%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (sourceUrl, source, line, column) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics, failing to explain what these inputs represent or how they should be used, which is critical given 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 'Retrieves code completion element information' restates the tool name 'codeCompletionElement' in a tautological manner. It specifies the verb 'retrieves' and resource 'code completion element information', but doesn't clarify what this information entails or how it differs from the sibling tool 'codeCompletion' 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 like 'codeCompletion' or 'codeCompletionFull'. The description offers no context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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