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. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions, rate limits, output format, or whether it requires an active debugger session. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool with potential runtime dependencies.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'stack trace' returns (e.g., call hierarchy, line numbers), how it relates to other debugger tools, or any behavioral constraints, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively in a debugging context.

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 one optional parameter ('semanticURIs') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but minimal value addition.

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 states the tool's purpose ('Retrieves the debugger stack trace'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('debugger stack trace'), but does not differentiate it from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerGoToStack' or 'debuggerVariables', leaving ambiguity about what exactly a 'stack trace' entails in this 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 multiple debugger-related sibling tools (e.g., 'debuggerAttach', 'debuggerStep'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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