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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Sets breakpoints' implies a mutation operation, but it fails to describe critical aspects such as required permissions, whether breakpoints persist across sessions, error handling, or side effects. It also does not explain what happens when breakpoints are set (e.g., if execution pauses immediately). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 just two words, 'Sets breakpoints', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but per the scoring rules, it earns a high score for being tightly structured without unnecessary verbiage.

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 a debugging tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose in context, usage guidelines, behavioral details, or expected outcomes. For a mutation tool in a debugging suite, this minimal description fails to provide the necessary information for effective 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, with all 10 parameters documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'debuggingMode' and 'breakpoints' or providing examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'Sets breakpoints' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('Sets') and resource ('breakpoints'), but lacks details about what breakpoints are, their purpose, or how they function in debugging. Compared to sibling tools like 'debuggerDeleteBreakpoints' or 'debuggerStep', it does not clearly differentiate its specific role in the debugging workflow.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugging session), exclusions, or related tools like 'debuggerDeleteBreakpoints' or 'debuggerListen'. Without any context, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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