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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Pushes changes' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements (e.g., credentials in 'user'/'password'), potential side effects (e.g., overwriting remote changes), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose.

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 push operation (mutation with authentication and potential conflicts), no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral details, the description is insufficient. It should cover prerequisites, side effects, or error scenarios to be complete for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters ('repo', 'staging', 'user', 'password'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'repo' or 'staging' objects contain or how they relate to the push operation, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('Pushes changes') and target ('to a Git repository'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling Git tools like 'gitPullRepo' or 'stageRepo' in terms of when to use each, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gitPullRepo' or 'stageRepo', nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing staged changes first). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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