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. While 'Creates' implies a write operation, it fails to mention critical details such as required permissions (e.g., admin rights), whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or if it interacts with remote servers. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Creates a new Git repository'), making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 Git repository creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), output format, or integration with sibling tools. This makes it incomplete for an agent to reliably use the tool in 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters documented (e.g., 'packageName' as 'The name of the package'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'repourl' relates to 'branch') or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Creates a new Git repository' clearly states the verb ('Creates') and resource ('Git repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitPullRepo' or 'gitUnlinkRepo', which also operate on Git repositories but perform different actions.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication, existing Git setup), when it's appropriate (e.g., initializing a new project), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'gitRepos' (which might list repositories) or 'createObject' (which creates other types of objects).

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