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. It states the action ('Authenticate') but doesn't explain what this entails—such as whether it creates a session, requires credentials (implied but not specified), has side effects like setting cookies, or returns tokens. 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 easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 tool's complexity (authentication with 0 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but misses details like session management, error handling, or return values, which could help the agent use it correctly in context with other tools.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, and it implies authentication without specifying inputs, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully covers parameters.

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 'Authenticate with ABAP system' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Authenticate') and target ('ABAP system'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling 'logout' tool, which handles session termination, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 authentication before other operations), exclusions, or related tools like 'logout', leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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