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 action ('retrieves information') but doesn't describe what information is returned, whether authentication is required (though parameters suggest optional credentials), potential rate limits, error conditions, or how it interacts with remote repositories. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's no redundancy or fluff, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 interacting with remote Git repositories, the description is incomplete. There's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain what information is retrieved (e.g., branches, commits, metadata). With no annotations and multiple sibling tools, more context is needed to understand how this tool fits into the ecosystem and what users can expect from its output.

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', 'user', 'password') with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, format expectations for 'repo', or authentication context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't 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 clearly states the verb ('retrieves information') and resource ('about a remote Git repository'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitExternalRepoInfo' or 'gitRepos', but the specificity of 'remote Git repository' provides some implicit distinction. This is clear but 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. There are several sibling tools related to Git repositories (e.g., 'gitExternalRepoInfo', 'gitRepos', 'checkRepo'), but the description doesn't mention any of them or explain scenarios where this tool is preferred. It offers no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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