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. It states 'retrieves' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether it's paginated or rate-limited, or what the output format is. For a list-retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for brevity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'traces' are, how results are returned (e.g., list structure, pagination), or behavioral aspects like safety or performance. For a tool with potential complexity (implied by sibling tools like 'tracesCreateConfiguration'), more context is needed.

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 one optional parameter 'user' described as 'The user.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying what 'user' means (e.g., username, ID, filter criteria). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieves a list of traces' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (traces), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'traces' are in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesListRequests' or 'tracesHitList', leaving room for ambiguity.

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. With sibling tools like 'tracesListRequests' and 'tracesHitList' that might serve similar or related purposes, the description offers no context for selection, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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