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. It states 'Retrieves' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if the trace ID is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with trace data.

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 is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity of trace-related operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'statements' are, the return format, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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 'id' documented as 'The ID of the trace' and 'options' as 'Options for retrieving statements.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or format details. 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 statements for a trace' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (statements for a trace), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'statements' are (e.g., log entries, SQL queries, code snippets) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesList' or 'tracesHitList', making it somewhat vague.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after identifying a trace), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone among many sibling tools.

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