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 the tool 'checks' something, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, has side effects, or details about the return value (e.g., boolean, error handling). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, validation details) or any behavioral aspects like error conditions. For a tool that performs a check, more context 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 parameter 'proposal' described as 'The ATC exemption proposal.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not elaborate on what constitutes a 'proposal message' or the validation criteria. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking if an object is a proposal message. It uses a specific verb ('checks') and identifies the resource ('proposal message'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'atcExemptProposal' or 'atcRequestExemption', which might be related, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.

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