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 it 'retrieves' data, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe, what permissions are needed, how it handles large tables, or what the output format looks like. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding what the tool does.

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 data retrieval tool with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'contents' means (structure, format), how results are returned, or any limitations. Given the complexity and lack of structured information, more context is needed for effective 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?

The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters like how 'sqlQuery' interacts with 'ddicEntityName' or what 'decode' actually does. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but no extra value is added.

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') and resource ('contents of an ABAP table'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'nodeContents' or 'ddicRepositoryAccess' that might also retrieve data, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 like 'nodeContents', 'ddicRepositoryAccess', and 'runQuery' that might retrieve or query data, there's no indication of when this specific table retrieval tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it.

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