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. While 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, what format the information is returned in, or any error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 retrieving DDIC information with multiple optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'DDIC element' means in this context, what information is returned, or how the optional parameters affect the output, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, with clear documentation for all 4 parameters (path, getTargetForAssociation, getExtensionViews, getSecondaryObjects). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 information about a DDIC element' clearly states the action (retrieves) and target (DDIC element), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'objectStructure' that might also retrieve information about ABAP objects, leaving the specific scope of 'DDIC element' somewhat vague without further context.

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. With many sibling tools that might retrieve or query ABAP objects (e.g., 'findDefinition', 'objectStructure', 'searchObject'), there's no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool.

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