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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Listens for debugging events' implies an ongoing monitoring or subscription behavior, but doesn't specify whether this is a blocking call, how events are delivered, what happens on conflicts (though parameters suggest conflict handling), or any rate limits/permissions. The description fails to explain the operational behavior beyond the basic verb.

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 at just three words. While this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, every word earns its place by conveying the core action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and efficient in its minimalism.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters (4 required), no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in the debugging domain, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it differs from similar tools, what 'listening' means operationally, or provide any context about the debugging system. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based on the description alone.

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 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already documented in the schema. With 6 parameters fully described in the schema, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 'Listens for debugging events' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'debuggerListen'. It provides no specific information about what kind of debugging events, what 'listening' entails operationally, or what distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'debuggerAttach' or 'debuggerListeners'. The purpose remains vague beyond the obvious implication from the name.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple debugging-related sibling tools (debuggerAttach, debuggerDeleteListener, debuggerListeners, debuggerSetBreakpoints, etc.), there's no indication of this tool's specific role, prerequisites, or appropriate context. The agent receives no usage instructions.

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