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 fails to do so. It does not mention whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, if it has side effects, rate limits, or what the output looks like, leaving 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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Creates an ATC run.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but per scoring rules, it earns full points for brevity and structure.

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 run is, its purpose, or the outcome of creation, failing to provide necessary context for a tool that likely performs a write operation with three parameters, making it inadequate for 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 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all parameters (variant, mainUrl, maxResults). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Creates an ATC run' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'createAtcRun' without adding specificity. It does not clarify what an 'ATC run' entails or distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'atcCheckVariant' or 'atcCustomizing', leaving the purpose vague beyond the basic verb.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, and does not reference sibling tools like 'atcCheckVariant' or 'atcWorklists' for differentiation, offering no usage instructions.

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