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 formats code but does not describe what 'pretty printer' entails (e.g., indentation, line breaks), whether it modifies the input in-place or returns formatted output, or any error handling for invalid code. 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 that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, such as hinting at the output or usage context.

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 for a tool that performs code formatting. It does not explain what the formatted output looks like, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool with one parameter but no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more context to guide effective use.

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 'source' parameter clearly documented as 'The ABAP source code to format.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format requirements or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 states the tool 'Formats ABAP code using the pretty printer,' which clearly indicates its purpose as a code formatting tool. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' or 'syntaxCheckCode,' leaving ambiguity about its specific role. The description is not tautological but 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 prerequisites, such as needing valid ABAP code, or compare it to related tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' for validation or 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' for configuration. Without explicit usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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