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 tool is for 'previewing', implying it is a read-only or simulation operation, but does not clarify if it requires specific permissions, what the preview output entails (e.g., changes, side effects), or any limitations like rate constraints, leaving key behavioral traits unspecified.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as by hinting at the preview'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 refactoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the preview shows (e.g., impacted code, conflicts), potential side effects, or how it integrates with sibling tools like renameExecute, making it incomplete for effective agent use in this context.

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 parameters 'renameRefactoring' and 'transport' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a rename refactoring proposal contains or when to use the optional transport parameter, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating value.

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 'previews a rename refactoring', which clearly indicates its purpose as a preview operation for refactoring. However, it lacks specificity about what is being renamed (e.g., code elements, files, or objects) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like renameEvaluate or renameExecute, making it somewhat vague.

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 a rename refactoring proposal first, or compare it to related tools like renameEvaluate (which might assess feasibility) or renameExecute (which performs the actual rename), leaving usage context unclear.

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