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 completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has side effects, what format the results come in, or any rate limits or constraints. The phrase 'search help' is ambiguous and provides no behavioral context about what the tool actually does or returns.

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 extremely concise - just 4 words - but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it doesn't waste words, it also doesn't provide enough information to be genuinely helpful. The single sentence structure is simple but fails to convey essential information about the tool's purpose and usage.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, or how it differs from alternatives. The combination of vague purpose, missing behavioral context, and lack of differentiation from similar tools makes this description insufficient for an AI agent to effectively use this tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('type' and 'name') having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already documented in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.

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 'Performs a package search help' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'packageSearchHelp' with minimal added meaning. It uses the vague term 'search help' without clarifying what this operation actually does or what resource it acts upon. While it includes a verb ('Performs'), it lacks specificity about what a 'package search help' entails or how it differs from other search-related tools like 'searchObject' or 'findDefinition'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any specific context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. Given the many sibling tools (over 100), including several search-related ones like 'searchObject', 'findDefinition', and 'findCollectionByUrl', the absence of any differentiation makes it impossible for an AI agent to understand when this particular package search tool should be selected.

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