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. The description only states it 'retrieves a list' without any information about permissions required, rate limits, side effects, response format, pagination, or what constitutes a 'dump'. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide the behavioral context an agent needs to use it effectively.

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 at just four words. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the description itself is perfectly structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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, no output schema, and minimal description, this tool definition is incomplete for practical use. The agent knows it retrieves a list of something called 'dumps' with an optional filter, but has no information about what dumps are, what domain they belong to, what the response looks like, or when to use this versus other tools. For a tool in a complex environment with over 100 siblings, this description provides insufficient 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 description mentions nothing about parameters. However, the input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single optional parameter 'query' documented as 'An optional query string to filter the dumps.' Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate even though the description adds no parameter information.

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 a list of dumps' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'dumps' with a generic verb. It doesn't specify what kind of dumps (e.g., database dumps, debug dumps, system dumps) or what resource domain they belong to. While it includes a verb ('retrieves'), it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools that might also retrieve lists of things.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or constraints. Given the extensive list of sibling tools (over 100), this lack of guidance is particularly problematic as the agent has no way to determine when 'dumps' is the appropriate tool versus other list-retrieval or query tools.

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