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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'retrieves' implies a read operation, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's safe or has side effects, response format, or error conditions. For a debugger tool with no annotations, this minimal description is insufficient to inform the agent adequately.

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's front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieves'), making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps 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 complexity of debugger operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what variables are returned, their format, or how they relate to the 'parents' parameter. For a tool in a debugger context with siblings like 'debuggerChildVariables', more detail is needed to guide proper usage.

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 'parents' parameter documented as 'An array of parent variable names.' The description adds no additional parameter context beyond this. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't 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 'Retrieves debugger variables' clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('debugger variables'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., current stack frame, all variables) or differentiate from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerChildVariables' or 'debuggerSetVariableValue', leaving ambiguity about what exactly is being retrieved.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugger session), context (e.g., after setting breakpoints), or how it differs from related tools like 'debuggerChildVariables' or 'debuggerStackTrace', leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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