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 fails to describe any behavioral traits, such as whether it's a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what the output entails. The description adds no value beyond the minimal statement of purpose.

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 with a single sentence, 'Performs full code completion.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and 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 complexity implied by 5 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, or parameters, making it incomplete 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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about any parameters, such as what 'sourceUrl', 'source', 'line', 'column', or 'patternKey' represent or how they should be used. This leaves all parameters completely unexplained.

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 'Performs full code completion' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'codeCompletionFull' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what distinguishes 'full' code completion from the sibling tool 'codeCompletion' or what resources it acts upon, leaving the purpose vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling 'codeCompletion' tool. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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