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. 'Saves' implies a write operation, but it does not specify whether this requires authentication, affects other users, has side effects, or how settings are persisted (e.g., locally vs. globally). The description lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's action without unnecessary elaboration, which is efficient for a simple tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'saves' entails (e.g., success response, error conditions, or persistence details), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and outcomes. This is inadequate given the complexity implied by a write operation.

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 the single parameter 'settings' documented as 'The debugger settings.' The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the 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 'Saves debugger settings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'debuggerSaveSettings'. It specifies the verb 'saves' and resource 'debugger settings', but lacks any differentiation from sibling tools or details about what 'saves' entails (e.g., persistence scope, format). This makes it vague and minimally informative beyond 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context (e.g., after configuring settings), or sibling tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' or 'debuggerSetVariableValue' that might be related. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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