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. 'Creates' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens on success/failure, if it's idempotent, or what side effects occur. The description lacks essential behavioral context for a creation tool.

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 extremely concise at just three words. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted language.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a trace configuration is, what format the 'config' parameter should use, what happens after creation, or how this integrates with other trace operations. The context is incomplete for proper tool understanding.

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 a single parameter 'config' described as 'The trace configuration.' The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter information in the description.

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 'Creates a trace configuration' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'tracesCreateConfiguration'. It doesn't specify what a trace configuration is, what resources it affects, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'tracesDeleteConfiguration' or 'tracesSetParameters'. The purpose is stated but lacks meaningful differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to traces (tracesDeleteConfiguration, tracesSetParameters, tracesList, etc.), but the description offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or distinctions from other trace-related operations.

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