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 'previews', implying a read-only or simulation operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is (since no output schema exists), or any side effects like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, making it appropriately concise. However, it could be more front-loaded with additional context to improve clarity, but it's structurally sound.

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 refactoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'preview' entails, what the expected return values are, or how it fits into a larger workflow with sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'proposal' parameter fully documented as 'The extract method proposal.' The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as explaining the format or content of a proposal. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Previews an extract method refactoring' clearly states the action (preview) and the operation (extract method refactoring), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what resource or scope it operates on (e.g., code in a file or repository), and it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'extractMethodEvaluate' or 'extractMethodExecute', making it somewhat vague.

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 such as 'extractMethodEvaluate' or 'extractMethodExecute'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical workflows, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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