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. 'Sets' implies a mutation operation, but the description fails to disclose critical traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what the default settings are, or any side effects. It adds no context beyond the basic action, leaving 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 with no wasted words, making it highly concise. It is front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of detail. Every part of the sentence directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, failing to compensate for the absence of structured data. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for a tool that modifies settings.

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 clear documentation for both parameters ('indent' and 'style'). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't explain how these parameters interact, what values 'style' might accept, or their effects on output. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Sets the pretty printer settings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('Sets') and resource ('pretty printer settings'), but lacks any detail about what these settings control or their impact, making it vague. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'prettyPrinter' or 'prettyPrinterSetting', leaving the purpose unclear beyond the basic action.

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 is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools such as 'prettyPrinter' or 'prettyPrinterSetting' that might be related. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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