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 performs a syntax check but doesn't describe what that entails (e.g., returns errors/warnings, requires specific permissions, has side effects like logging). This leaves 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. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations and schema descriptions.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the syntax check output, parameter interactions, or behavioral details, making it incomplete for effective agent 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'source code', which loosely relates to the 'code' parameter, but doesn't explain the other 4 optional parameters (url, mainUrl, mainProgram, version) or their roles in the syntax check process. This leaves most parameters undocumented.

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 'Perform ABAP syntax check with source code' clearly states the action (syntax check) and resource (ABAP source code), but it's vague about scope and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl' and 'syntaxCheckTypes'. It doesn't specify what constitutes a 'syntax check' (e.g., validation, error reporting).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl' or 'syntaxCheckTypes'. The description implies usage for ABAP code syntax checking but doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts (e.g., development vs. testing).

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