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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves a list' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the list returns, if there are rate limits, or how conflicts are handled (despite the checkConflict parameter). The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral aspects 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 - a single sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, making it somewhat under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 5 parameters (4 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'debugger listeners' are, what the returned list contains, how parameters interact, or when conflicts might occur. The minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how debuggingMode, terminalId, ideId, and user work together) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 a list of debugger listeners' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (debugger listeners), but it's somewhat vague about what 'debugger listeners' actually are in this context. It distinguishes from non-debugger siblings but doesn't differentiate from similar debugger tools like 'debuggerListen' or 'debuggerDeleteListener'.

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. There are several related debugger tools (debuggerListen, debuggerDeleteListener, debuggerAttach, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific 'listeners' retrieval is appropriate versus other debugger operations.

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