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. 'Performs a debugger step' reveals nothing about what the tool actually does behaviorally: whether it advances execution, changes program state, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens after stepping. For a tool that likely modifies debugger state, this complete lack of behavioral information is inadequate.

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 maximally concise with a single sentence that contains no wasted words. While it's under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word in 'Performs a debugger step' serves a purpose, making it technically efficient despite its informational deficiencies.

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 debugger operations and the complete lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. A debugger step tool likely has important behavioral characteristics (execution advancement, state changes, interaction with breakpoints) that aren't addressed. The description doesn't explain what happens after stepping or how this integrates with other debugger tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to use it correctly.

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%, with both parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description. The description doesn't compensate or add value, but doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive.

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 'Performs a debugger step' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'debuggerStep' without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what a debugger step actually does (e.g., step into, step over, step out) or what resource it operates on (e.g., debugger session, execution context). While it mentions 'debugger' which provides some context, it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling debugger tools like debuggerAttach, debuggerSetBreakpoints, or debuggerVariables.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an active debugger session), appropriate contexts, or relationships to other debugger tools. With multiple sibling debugger tools available, this lack of differentiation makes it impossible for an agent to determine when debuggerStep is the correct choice.

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