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 full burden. It states the action but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a local or remote operation, if it requires authentication (implied by user/password params but not stated), what happens on failure, or if it's destructive to uncommitted changes. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent use.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient for an AI agent.

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?

For a Git operation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'switching' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, error conditions, or how it interacts with other Git tools in the sibling list. The context demands more completeness.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format of 'repo', branching rules). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('switches') and resource ('branch of a Git repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitPullRepo' or 'pushRepo' that also operate on Git repositories, which prevents 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to Git operations (e.g., gitPullRepo, pushRepo, stageRepo), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific branch-switching function.

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