ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. 'Executes' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this modifies source code irreversibly, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. It lacks critical context for safe and effective use.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action, though its brevity contributes to the lack of detail 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 a code refactoring execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain behavioral traits, usage context, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how and when to invoke it safely and effectively.

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 adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. However, with 100% schema description coverage (the 'refactoring' parameter is documented as 'The refactoring object'), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional details about the refactoring object's structure or requirements, but it doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 'Executes an extract method refactoring' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'extractMethodExecute'. While it specifies the action ('executes') and domain ('extract method refactoring'), it doesn't clarify what this actually does in practice or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'extractMethodEvaluate' and 'extractMethodPreview' that likely handle related aspects of the same refactoring process.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid refactoring object from evaluation/preview steps), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'extractMethodEvaluate' (likely for assessment) or 'extractMethodPreview' (likely for simulation), leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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