mcp-abap-abap-adt-api

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation2/5
With 127 tools covering overlapping domains like transport, debugging, ATC, and traces, many tools have unclear boundaries (e.g., hasTransportConfig vs getTransportConfiguration, codeCompletion vs codeCompletionFull, loadTypes vs objectTypes). The sheer volume makes it difficult for an agent to reliably select the correct tool.
Naming Consistency2/5
The naming uses a mix of verb-first (createTransport, getObjectSource, runClass), noun-first (transportInfo, objectStructure, debuggerVariables), and inconsistent prefixes (set, create, has, get, delete). There is no uniform pattern, and 'unLock' vs 'unPublishServiceBinding' and the typo 'adtCompatibiliyGraph' add to inconsistency.
Tool Count1/5
127 tools is far beyond the typical MCP server scope and falls into the extreme category. Even for a broad ABAP ADT API, exposing every operation without grouping or filtering creates an overwhelming surface.
Completeness4/5
The server covers a wide range of ABAP development workflows including object CRUD, transports, syntax checking, debugging, refactoring, ATC, tracing, and Git operations. Minor gaps exist, such as missing delete operations for transport configs or explicit object assignment to transports, but most primary workflows are supported.
Average 2.7/5 across 127 of 127 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'applies', which implies a mutation, but does not disclose what side effects occur, whether changes are reversible, what inputs are required for a successful application, or what the tool returns. This is severely lacking for a likely mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information that should be present, making it an incomplete specification rather than a well-structured concise description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely role in the ADT workflow (sibling fixProposals implies it applies generated fixes), the description is far too sparse. It lacks any details about required inputs, expected behavior, or how it fits with related tools. The absence of annotations and output schema makes this description completely inadequate for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'source' and 'proposal'. It does not explain what these strings represent, their format, or how they relate to each other. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Applies fix edits' essentially restates the tool name 'fixEdits' with no additional specificity. It does not explain what fix edits are, what resource they are applied to, or how this relates to sibling tools like fixProposals. The verb and noun are present but lack contextual meaning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a proposal from fixProposals), no context about typical workflows, and no exclusion criteria. The description is entirely silent on usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, return values, or any operational nuances. It is a bare statement with zero behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It contains no useful information beyond the tool name, so the brevity does not serve a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a one-line vacuous description, the tool is completely under-specified. There is no context about what 'package search help' means operationally, making the description inadequate for any non-trivial agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (name and type), so the schema already documents them adequately. The description adds no extra meaning, but per the baseline for high coverage, this is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Performs a package search help' is essentially a tautology, restating the tool name without adding any specificity about what the tool actually does. There is no distinction from sibling search tools like searchObject or findObjectPath.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. Given the large sibling set with various search and help tools, the complete absence of usage context leaves the agent without any direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral characteristics, but it only states that the tool 'Retrieves fix proposals' without noting return payload, pagination, permissions, or side effects. It also does not clarify whether this is a safe read operation or what the response structure is.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is minimal but severely under-specified. A single vague sentence is not conciseness when the tool has 4 required parameters and no other documentation; it is under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 4 undocumented parameters. The one-sentence description gives no indication of input format, return value, or relationship to ATC concepts. This is wholly insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 4 required parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of how url, source, line, and column are used or formatted. The agent must guess the meaning of these parameters, which are not self-explanatory in context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves fix proposals' essentially restates the tool name 'fixProposals' without adding any information about what constitutes a fix proposal or how it differs from sibling tools like fixEdits or atcExemptProposal. This is a tautology rather than a meaningful purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose whether this is a read-only, mutating, or execution operation. 'Runs a class.' gives no information about side effects, error behavior, required permissions, or return value, making behavioral expectations completely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It front-loads a single phrase, yet every word merely echoes the tool name, and no useful information is conveyed to earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a single undocumented parameter, the description is critically incomplete. An agent cannot reliably know what this tool does, when to call it, what inputs to provide, or what to expect in response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the schema gives only the parameter name 'className' and its type, with no description. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the literal name, failing to explain what class names are valid, how to format them, or what the parameter is used for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Runs a class.' is nearly a verbatim restatement of the tool name 'runClass', providing no additional specificity about what 'run' means, what kind of class, or what the expected outcome is. It cannot be distinguished from sibling tools like unitTestRun or runQuery, making the purpose vague despite having a verb and object.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of similar siblings such as unitTestRun, runQuery, or createTestInclude. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any basis for selecting this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet reveals nothing about side effects, safety, or the nature of the discovery. It is a vague placeholder that offers no insight into what the tool actually does.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is only one sentence, it is under-specified rather than concise. It conveys almost no meaningful information and is closer to an empty placeholder, earning a 2 rather than a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is entirely inadequate given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter details. It fails to explain what ADT discovery means, what the tool returns, or how it relates to sibling discovery tools, leaving the agent without any basis for proper selection or invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because with 0 parameters, the description does not need to clarify any inputs; the empty schema already conveys the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology: it simply restates the tool name ('Performs ADT discovery') without any specific verb, resource, or scope. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like adtCoreDiscovery, making it impossible to understand what unique purpose it serves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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, what situations call for it, or how it differs from alternatives such as adtCoreDiscovery. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context of use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It provides none: no side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or return behavior. The description is empty of behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specified. It is not concise in a useful way; it omits critical details, making it more of a placeholder than a tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or accomplishes, but it does not. The tool's behavior is entirely opaque, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the single parameter 'path' with a description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Accesses the DDIC repository' essentially restates the tool name without specifying the nature of access (read, write, search, etc.). It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'ddicElement' which likely targets specific elements, making the purpose vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. There are no context hints, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits. It does not mention optimistic locking via ETag, mutation semantics, conflict handling, prerequisites, or return values. The agent has no information about side effects or safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise but is under-specification, not effective conciseness. It only restates the tool name and provides no value, so the sentence does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is wholly inadequate. It lacks return behavior, error cases, and operational context, making it impossible for an agent to understand the tool's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with basic descriptions (URI, ETag, config). The tool description adds no parameter context, but the high schema coverage gives a baseline of 3. The schema descriptions are minimal, but the description fails to enrich them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets transport configurations' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It does not clarify what 'sets' means (create vs update), which transport, or how it differs from siblings like createTransportsConfig or getTransportConfiguration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple transport-related sibling tools (createTransportsConfig, transportConfigurations, getTransportConfiguration), the absence of any usage context or exclusions is a critical gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'retrieves' but does not describe side effects, return format, data scope, or any limitations. The agent gains no behavioral insight beyond a generic read action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is severely under-specified. It leaves out essential details about what 'object types' means or what the response contains. This is not effective conciseness but rather an unhelpful minimalism that fails to earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and the description is too vague to understand the tool's purpose or result. For a tool with zero parameters, the description should at least clarify what is retrieved, but it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter details to explain. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves object types' essentially restates the tool name 'objectTypes' with a generic verb. It gives no specific detail about what kind of object types are returned, nor does it distinguish this tool from siblings like 'loadTypes' or 'objectStructure'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions. With many sibling tools, the absence of usage guidance makes it hard for an agent to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Checks a Git repository' reveals nothing about side effects, return values, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. The agent has zero insight into what happens when the tool runs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence provides no substantive information, making it equivalently unhelpful to a one-word placeholder.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a vague one-line description. Given the complexity of the surrounding tool ecosystem (many git-related operations), the description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, inputs, or behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. However, the parameter descriptions are also minimal ('The Git repository', 'The username', 'The password') and the tool description adds no additional meaning. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameters, but value-add from the description is absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Checks a Git repository' restates the tool name without specifying what 'check' involves or what resource is examined. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like gitRepos, gitPullRepo, or gitUnlinkRepo, so the agent cannot understand the tool's specific function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related git tools. No context, prerequisites, or alternative options are mentioned, leaving the agent without any direction for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Creates' indicates a mutation, but it doesn't describe side effects, required permissions, whether the run is immediately executed, or the outcome. No behavioral context is provided, making this inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits essential information about the tool's purpose, context, and behavior. The structure provides no front-loaded critical details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a three-word description. It doesn't explain what an ATC run is, what creation entails, or how it relates to sibling tools. The definition is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity and context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with each of the three parameters having a description. The description itself adds no additional parameter context, but the schema sufficiently documents the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates an ATC run' essentially restates the tool name with a generic verb. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling ATC tools like atcCheckVariant or atcWorklists, and the term 'ATC run' remains unexplained. This is close to a tautology, providing minimal purpose clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. It simply states an action without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only indicates a read operation ('retrieves') but does not disclose parameter expectations, return format, or any behavioral details such as whether login is required or what happens on failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified, providing no more information than the tool name. It fails to earn its place due to lack of useful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence vague description is completely inadequate. The agent lacks essential information about invocation context, parameter meaning, and expected results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema lists 5 properties with zero documentation, and the description adds absolutely no parameter semantics. The agent cannot infer what 'body', 'line', 'column', 'objectUri', or 'language' mean or how they relate to retrieval.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves ABAP documentation' uses a clear verb and resource, but it lacks specificity about what documentation, for which objects, or how it differs from sibling tools like findDefinition or objectStructure. It's vague rather than tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 merely states an action with no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Performs ADT core discovery' without mentioning side effects, return values, required preconditions like login, or any operational behavior. This is completely inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence) but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It omits all meaningful information, so the brevity is not a virtue; it fails to earn its place by adding value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there are no annotations, no output schema, and an empty parameter schema, the description is the sole source of context. It fails to explain what ADT core discovery does, what inputs or outputs are involved, or how it relates to the many sibling tools, making it severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty with 0 parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but there are no parameters to document, so nothing is missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Performs ADT core discovery' is essentially a restatement of the tool name with a generic verb. It identifies a resource ('ADT core discovery') but does not define what that resource is or what 'discovery' accomplishes, nor does it distinguish this tool from the sibling 'adtDiscovery'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as adtDiscovery or adtCompatibiliyGraph. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided; the description only states the action without any situational advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'Retrieves', implying a read operation, but does not state return format, side effects, prerequisites, or any limits. This is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It contributes almost no actionable information and does not earn its place, as it adds no value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a single ambiguously-described parameter, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain what usage reference snippets are, what input to provide, or what the user will get back. The tool may be simple, but the description still leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter 'references' (type array) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain this parameter at all, leaving its meaning and expected content completely ambiguous. For a tool with only one parameter, this is a significant omission.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Retrieves usage reference snippets' which includes a verb and a resource, but 'usage reference snippets' is undefined jargon. The sibling tool 'usageReferences' exists, and the description does not differentiate between them, leaving the exact purpose unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tool names include 'usageReferences', but no exclusions or contextual triggers are provided, so the use case is not at all specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral details. It does not explain how the sourceUrl, source, line, or column parameters affect the completion suggestions, nor does it mention session requirements, rate limits, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It provides no additional structure or detail to earn its place beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of context. It fails to explain what the completion suggestions look like, how the parameters interact, or how this tool relates to its siblings. The description is inadequate for a tool with four required parameters and no other documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has four required parameters (sourceUrl, source, line, column) with zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning or usage of any of these parameters, leaving the agent with no information about how to populate them correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns code completion suggestions, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('code completion suggestions'). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like codeCompletionFull or codeCompletionElement, which appear to be related variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as codeCompletionFull or codeCompletionElement. The description offers no context about suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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, but it merely restates the tool name ('full code completion') without describing inputs, outputs, or side effects. This is essentially a tautology.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise in word count but under-specifies the tool's purpose and usage. It does not earn its place by adding meaningful detail beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter explanations. The description provides no context about the tool's operation, making it impossible for an agent to use it correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain any of the 5 parameters (sourceUrl, source, line, column, patternKey). The agent gets no semantic help for how to fill these fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs code completion, and the name includes 'Full' to differentiate it from sibling tools like codeCompletion. However, it doesn't specify what 'full' entails, so the differentiation is weak.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 its siblings (e.g., codeCompletion, codeCompletionElement). No context or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 merely says 'Listens' without explaining whether it blocks, returns a stream, requires an active debug session, has side effects, or how it terminates. This is severely under-specified for a tool that likely sets up a persistent connection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence, which is concise but not effectively so. This is under-specification rather than conciseness — the sentence carries too little information for a tool with 6 parameters and a complex domain. It doesn't earn its place because it doesn't add meaningful detail beyond what the name implies.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (debugger-related, 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what events look like, how to stop listening, whether it's a one-shot or continuous subscription, or how the parameters affect behavior. The tool is effectively unusable based on this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't explain how parameters like debuggingMode, terminalId, or checkConflict interact or what role they play in the listening process. The schema descriptions are minimal but present, so the description doesn't degrade the score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Listens for debugging events' has a specific verb ('listens') and a resource ('debugging events'), but the resource is vague and doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'debuggerListeners' or other debugger tools. It communicates a general activity but lacks specificity about what kind of debugging events or scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description gives no context about how this listener fits into a debugging workflow or when to choose it over sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses nothing beyond the basic search intent—no mention of return format, side effects, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence, which is concise in length but severely under-specified. It lacks necessary context and reads more as an incomplete placeholder than a deliberately concise explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what a successful response looks like, how to structure queries, or how results are ordered—critical gaps for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (query, max, objType), giving 100% schema coverage. However, the tool description adds no additional semantic context or usage details beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search for objects' uses a clear verb and resource but is vague about what kinds of objects, search scope, or context. It does not differentiate from numerous sibling search tools like findObjectPath or objectTypes, so it falls short of a specific purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply implies a search operation without contextualizing it among the many similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read operation ('Retrieves') but does not state whether it affects the debugger session, what context it operates in, or any side effects. No permissions or response format are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, but it conveys almost no useful information beyond the name. Under-specification is not the same as conciseness; this sentence adds no value and could be inferred entirely from the tool name and schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the debugger tool family and the lack of output schema, annotations, or any explanatory context, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value, how it relates to other debugger tools, or the role of parent variables in the retrieval.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the sole parameter 'parents,' which is described as 'An array of parent variable names.' The tool description adds no further meaning about how this parameter influences the retrival, but the schema already provides a baseline. Thus a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Retrieves debugger variables,' which is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'debuggerVariables.' It lacks specificity about which variables (e.g., top-level vs. child) or how it differs from sibling tools like debuggerChildVariables. This is close to a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are no context clues, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The existence of many debugger-related siblings makes this lack particularly problematic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 disclosing side effects, permissions, or return behavior. It discloses none, making this a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, which is good, but it is under-specified. It states the purpose in a single sentence without any additional structure or context, making it minimally acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what fragment mappings are, what the parameters mean, or what the response looks like, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three required parameters (url, type, name) with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain any parameters, adding no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and the object ('fragment mappings'), making it a specific retrieval operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools or elaborate on what fragment mappings are, so it's not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 only states 'Sets trace parameters' without revealing side effects, permissions, reversibility, or any other behavioral traits. This is essentially missing information, not just a lack of detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks any detail that would make it valuable, and the extreme brevity does not serve the agent effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'trace parameters' are, how they should be formatted, or the effect of setting them, which is critical in a domain with many trace-related sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter with a description covering 100% of the parameter semantics ('The trace parameters.'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'Sets' and identifies the resource 'trace parameters', providing a basic understanding of the action. However, it is vague and does not specify what 'parameters' means or distinguish this tool from sibling operations like tracesCreateConfiguration or tracesDeleteConfiguration, which also deal with trace configurations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many trace-related siblings. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without clear direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 implies a read-only operation via 'retrieves' but gives no details about side effects, required authentication, parameter validation, or return behavior. This minimal information barely covers the agent's needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. It provides almost no actionable information, so the brevity is a liability, not a strength.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has 4 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description fails to explain the tool's purpose relative to siblings, parameter semantics, or behavioral context, making it completely inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage on two string and two numeric parameters (sourceUrl, source, line, column), but the description adds nothing about their meaning or how they relate to the retrieval. With no parameter info, the agent cannot construct correct arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'retrieves' with a resource 'code completion element information', so it states what the tool does. However, it doesn't specify what an 'element' means or how this tool differs from siblings like codeCompletion or codeCompletionFull.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool compared to any alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the primary action. It does not explain side effects, error behavior, or requirements (e.g., whether it deletes a single breakpoint or all breakpoints in a session).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise as a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It does not earn its place because it merely restates the tool name and provides no additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, one nested object) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how parameters relate to the operation, what a successful deletion looks like, or any constraints or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing descriptions for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema descriptions are extremely generic (e.g., 'The IDE ID.'), and the tool description does not add any additional semantic context or relationships between parameters. Thus, the description itself adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deletes breakpoints' is a tautology of the tool name debuggerDeleteBreakpoints, adding no new information. It does not specify the scope (e.g., which breakpoints, all breakpoints) or distinguish itself from sibling tools like debuggerSetBreakpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., active debugging session) or scenarios where deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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, but it only states what the tool does without any side effects, requirements, or return behavior. It does not mention that stepping modifies debugger state, requires an active session, or what happens with invalid steptype values. This is severely insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to read. However, it is under-specified, but that under-specification is penalized in other dimensions, not here. For conciseness alone, it earns a 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a debugger mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a terse description. It provides no information about valid steptype values, prerequisites, return values, or operation side effects. Given the complexity of debugger interactions and the presence of many sibling debugger tools, this description is completely inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage of both parameters, each with at least a basic description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema; the steptype description remains vague ('The type of step to perform') and the url description gives some context for specific step types, but the overall meaning is not enhanced beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Performs a debugger step' names a verb and resource, but 'step' is vague and does not clarify whether it means step into, over, or out, nor does it distinguish this from sibling debugger tools like debuggerGoToStack or debuggerSetVariableValue. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many debugger sibling tools. The description does not state when it should be invoked, mention prerequisites like an active debugger session, or explain how it relates to other stepping/stack operations. This is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Find symbol definition', with no mention of return behavior, whether it's read-only, error handling, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure, though it implies a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At only three words, the description is extremely terse but under-specified. It lacks the necessary structure to prepare an agent for invocation. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, requiring a rich description. The given text offers no information about input requirements, optional parameters, output format, or behavior, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the seven parameters (url, source, line, startCol, endCol, mainProgram, implementation). The description does not compensate for the sparse schema, leaving parameter semantics completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find symbol definition' clearly identifies the tool's core function (locating a definition for a symbol), but it provides no differentiation from siblings like 'findObjectPath' or 'objectStructure'. The verb+resource is specific enough for a basic understanding, but lacks scope details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'usageReferences' or 'searchObject'. The description contains only the operation name, with no context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only implies a read-only 'load' action, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, return format, or error behavior. This is minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at three words, but this under-specification makes it less helpful than a more balanced description. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, yet it fails to provide enough substance to be an effective tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and no usage context. The description does not mention what the result of loading types is, what types are available, or how this task fits into the broader workflow. It is completely inadequate for a tool that should explain its behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms an empty properties object. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and since there are no params to document, the description does not need to add parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Loads object types' essentially restates the tool name without explaining what 'load' means or what constitutes an 'object type'. It does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'objectTypes', which likely serves a similar or overlapping purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get registration information,' implying a read operation but not explaining any side effects, required permissions, or return behavior. It adds nothing beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single brief sentence, which is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it is under-specified to the point of being almost tautological, so the brevity is not a strength.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a single schema with unexplained parameters, the description should provide context about what 'registration information' includes and any preconditions. It does not, making the tool inadequate for an agent to invoke confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema shows a single required string parameter 'objectUrl' with 0% coverage. The description vaguely ties it to 'an ABAP object' but does not explain the URL format, how to construct it, or what values are expected, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'registration information for an ABAP object', making the primary purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like getObjectSource or objectStructure, so it lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('sets') but doesn't mention whether it overwrites existing source, requires a lock, or has other side effects. No constraints or consequences are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence, but this brevity comes at the cost of essential information. It is under-specified and doesn't earn its place as a useful tool guide, resembling a tautological statement rather than a concise, informative description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a complex operation requiring lock handles and object source URLs, this minimal description is inadequate. It doesn't explain preconditions, return values, or the broader editing workflow, making it very hard for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema lists four string parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description doesn't mention any parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no semantic meaning to parameters like lockHandle or objectSourceUrl, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Sets' with a resource 'source code for ABAP objects', clearly indicating the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like getObjectSource, though it leaves ambiguity about whether it updates existing objects or creates new ones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., lock handle acquisition), or alternatives. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like createObject or setTransportsConfig, and no usage context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey side effects and behavior. It only states the action without disclosing persistence effects, validation behavior, activation status, or error conditions, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single succinct sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately short but does not attempt to pack in necessary context, which is a conciseness trade-off.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is grossly under-specified. It omits return value, prerequisites, and integration with other tools like validateNewObject or activateByName, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify any parameter. The parameter names like parentName and parentPath remain ambiguous without explanation, so the agent gets no added meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Create' and a resource 'ABAP object', which clearly identifies the action. However, 'ABAP object' is somewhat ambiguous and does not distinguish from other creation tools like createTransport or createTestInclude, though the context of repository objects is implied.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no description of side effects, the tool's behavior is entirely undisclosed. For a mutating action like attaching a debugger, the description fails to mention whether it requires an active session, whether it suspends execution, or what the outcome is. This is a major transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, making it front-loaded and free of filler. However, it is under-specified; it lacks necessary context and structure for a tool with 4 parameters, so it is not effectively concise in the sense of conveying complete meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a debugger operation with side effects, but the description gives no information about required prior state, the effect on the debuggee, or how to revert. There is no output schema or annotations to fill the gap. The description is grossly incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, and the schema descriptions are terse (e.g., 'The debugging mode.'), but they are present and complete. The tool description does not need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Attaches the debugger') and the resource (debugger), which is clear and distinct from sibling tools like debuggerStep or debuggerSetBreakpoints. However, it lacks scope details such as what 'attach' implies or the target context, so it does not fully distinguish from related tools like debuggerListen.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Given the large number of debugger-related sibling tools, the description offers no context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or why one would choose 'debuggerAttach' over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 disclosing behavioral traits. 'Evaluates a rename refactoring' reveals no side effects, required permissions, or what the evaluation entails, providing almost no transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and is concise, but it is severely under-specified. It reads more as a placeholder than as useful guidance, so the brevity is not effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and closely related sibling tools, the description is contextually incomplete. It does not explain what the evaluation returns, how the parameters map to a rename operation, or how this step fits into the larger rename workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with each parameter clearly labeled, so the schema already documents the parameters adequately. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Evaluates' with the resource 'a rename refactoring', making the basic intent clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tools renamePreview and renameExecute, which are closely related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use renameEvaluate versus alternatives like renamePreview or renameExecute. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects, safety, or return behavior. It only says 'perform... check' with no mention of whether it is read-only, modifies state, or requires authentication, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence with no redundancy, and it front-loads the action and object. It is appropriately concise, though perhaps too terse to be maximally useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely insufficient. It offers no context on prerequisites, optional parameters, expected results, or error conditions, making the tool nearly impossible to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with 5 parameters. The description only hints that 'code' holds source code, while 'url', 'mainUrl', 'version', and 'mainProgram' remain entirely unexplained. With heavy schema coverage reliance and no compensation, this is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Perform') and resource ('ABAP syntax check'), and mentions 'with source code' as the input. However, it does not distinguish from close siblings like 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl' or 'syntaxCheckTypes', so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl' or 'syntaxCheckTypes'. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios, providing no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must fully communicate behavior. It only says 'Retrieves' implying a read operation, but does not mention side effects, permissions, error conditions, or return format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks essential information, so the brevity is a deficiency, not a strength.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a transport reference is, what the return value looks like, or any constraints on the inputs, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema itself provides 100% coverage, so the agent has the basic parameter meanings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves a transport reference, which is a clear action, but it provides no detail on what a transport reference is or how it differs from similar tools like transportInfo. The purpose is not fully explained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or why one would choose this over transportInfo or other transport-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Releases a transport' and does not mention effects, side effects, permissions, reversibility, or any other behavioral traits, making it completely transparent about the operation's implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and extremely concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. For a tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this brevity does not serve the agent well; it lacks critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a very terse description. It fails to provide essential context such as when to use it, what side effects occur, or what the return value is, making it completely inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (transportNumber, IgnoreATC, ignoreLocks), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Releases a transport' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action on a transport. However, it lacks context about what 'release' entails and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like transportDelete or transportSetOwner, though 'release' is distinct enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 only states the action without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Find symbol references' and does not mention return format, session/login requirements, scope of references, error behavior, or whether it performs a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with no filler, which is structurally good. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimally useful, so while the form is fine, the content is too thin to earn a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a three-word description is wholly inadequate. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, and expected results, leaving an agent without enough information to correctly select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 by explaining the parameters. It mentions none of them: 'url' is not identified as the symbol target, and 'line' and 'column' are not explained as optional location hints. The description adds no value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find symbol references' clearly states a specific action (find) and resource (symbol references), distinguishing it from broad or tautological descriptions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like usageReferenceSnippets or findDefinition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The description is purely functional and lacks any situational advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a list is retrieved, implying a read operation, but it does not describe response format, filtering behavior, pagination, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence without unnecessary words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is arguably too under-specified, but that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, so the description should explain what a list of dumps contains and how the query affects results. It does neither, leaving important context missing. The description is too thin for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the only parameter 'query' at 100% with the description 'An optional query string to filter the dumps.' Therefore, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'retrieves' and identifies a resource ('list of dumps'), giving a clear action and object. However, 'dumps' is ambiguous without further context, and it does not distinguish the tool from other retrieval-focused sibling tools (e.g., tracesList, transportInfo).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'Find path for an object'. It implies a read-only operation but does not describe return format, error behavior, permissions, or side effects. Minimal transparency beyond what the name already suggests.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the brevity contributes to ambiguity. It earns its place but does not over-explain.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the path is determined. Given the ambiguous purpose and lack of usage guidance, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'objectUrl', which is described as 'URL of the object to find path for'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'find' and resource 'object path', but 'path for an object' is ambiguous and does not specify what kind of path (e.g., repository path, ADT object path) or what the output represents. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'searchObject'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 one-sentence description gives no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'Retrieves source code' without mentioning side effects, auth needs, return format, or what happens on failure. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit, and there is no detail on response structure or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no wasted words. It is concise, though this brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter info, the description is too incomplete. It does not clarify what 'ABAP objects' includes, how the source is returned, or how this tool relates to siblings like setObjectSource or objectStructure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about the two parameters. 'objectSourceUrl' is self-explanatory as a URL but 'options' is entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves source code for ABAP objects' uses a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like objectStructure or classIncludes, but 'source code' is distinct enough for a basic understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as needing an ADT URL or login, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lock an object' provides no information about the effects of locking, permission requirements, reversibility, or how it interacts with other operations such as 'unLock', leaving the agent without critical context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of only three words. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it is more of a fragment than a complete description and lacks structural context that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose or usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the schema fully describes the parameters, there is no output schema or annotations, and the description does not explain the lock semantics, prerequisites, or consequences. This leaves the agent under-informed for a tool that likely acts as a mutating operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of the parameters (objectUrl and accessMode) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Lock' and identifies a resource ('object'), clearly conveying the core action. It is distinguished from the sibling 'unLock' tool, but the term 'object' is generic and lacks specificity about the type of object being locked.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives might be relevant. The description simply states the action without any contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, permissions, and output behavior, but it only says 'Evaluates unit test results'. This leaves the agent unaware of whether evaluation is read-only, requires prior test runs, or returns specific data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, front-loaded and without waste. While it is terse, it achieves conciseness and avoids unnecessary detail, though a bit more context would improve it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the minimal description, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the tool omits critical context about evaluation outcomes, usage scenarios, and any dependencies. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('clas' and 'flags'), so the description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a verb and resource ('Evaluates unit test results') but lacks specificity about what evaluation entails. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like unitTestRun or unitTestOccurrenceMarkers, leaving ambiguity about its unique function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 gives no context for prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Unlock an object' without detailing side effects (such as removing the lock and making the object editable), failure conditions (e.g., trying to unlock an object that isn't locked), or permissions required. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point, though it could be slightly expanded to include usage context without becoming verbose. The structure is clean and front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the prerequisite of a prior lock operation, the effect of unlocking, error cases, or when this tool is the right choice. The schema covers the parameters but not the broader operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides detailed descriptions for both required parameters (objectUrl and lockHandle), so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, which is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Unlock' and identifies the resource as 'object', which makes the core action clear. However, 'object' is generic and does not specify what kind of object, though the sibling tool 'lock' implies this is the inverse operation. It doesn't explicitly mention the lock handle or URL, leaving the scope somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 that it should be used after a successful lock operation or that a valid lock handle is required. There is no mention of contexts where unlocking is appropriate or disallowed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without any details on side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the core action without unnecessary detail, though this brevity contributes to other dimension deficits.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It fails to explain what an ATC finding is, what 'contact' means, what the operation does beyond the bare action, or what the agent can expect as a result, making it nearly impossible to use correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions for userId and itemUri (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. However, the description does not explain how the parameters map to the 'contact' action, leaving the agent to infer that userId likely represents the new contact.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Changes the contact for an ATC finding' clearly states the action (changes) and the resource (contact for an ATC finding), which is more specific than the tool name alone. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling ATC tools like atcExemptProposal or atcRequestExemption, and 'contact' is not fully defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual decision-making information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Retrieves details' without mentioning side effects, permissions, read-only nature, or behavior on missing bindings. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and a nested object parameter, but the description provides no additional context about the return format, typical use cases, or relationship to other tools. It is minimal and leaves the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for both parameters (index and binding), offering 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves details of a service binding, with a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like publishServiceBinding or featureDetails, which also relate to bindings or details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 only states what it does, not under what circumstances it should be invoked or when other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'executes', which implies a modification but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, source changes, or error conditions. For a refactoring tool likely to modify code, this is critically minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, front-loaded and without redundancy. It earns its place but is exceedingly sparse, bordering on under-specification, which prevents a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description should provide more context. It doesn't explain the effect of execution, the relationship to evaluate/preview siblings, or what the 'refactoring' string should contain, making it incomplete for an action tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the single 'refactoring' parameter with a description ('The refactoring object.'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides the necessary baseline, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action verb 'Executes' and the resource 'extract method refactoring', making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like extractMethodPreview or extractMethodEvaluate, so it's not fully distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention that this is the final step after preview, any prerequisites, or workflow context. The sibling names suggest a sequence, but the description doesn't link to them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, required authentication, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It presents the core functionality upfront. While minimal, it is appropriately concise for a simple action statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what happens on success, required permissions, relationship to other Git tools, or any constraints. The agent would need to infer too much.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but also doesn't mislead. Parameters like packageName and repourl are self-explanatory from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates a new Git repository' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from read/list operations like gitRepos or pull/push tools, though it doesn't elaborate on whether it creates a local or remote repository. Specific verb+resource, but lacking scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as gitPullRepo, gitUnlinkRepo, or remoteRepoInfo. The description does not indicate prerequisites (e.g., existing target) or situations where this tool should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Pulls changes' without mentioning authentication, merge behavior, side effects, or required permissions, which is insufficient for a mutating Git operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler or unnecessary details. It is appropriately concise, though brevity comes at the cost of informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, failure modes, or the role of optional parameters like user/password/transport, leaving major gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with basic descriptions for all 5 parameters (e.g., username, branch, repoId, password, transport). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies even though parameters like 'transport' remain underspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Pulls') and resource ('Git repository'), clearly identifying the operation. It is distinct from sibling tools like pushRepo and stageRepo, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or elaborate on the scope of the pull.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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, and it fails to do so. It only repeats the core verb 'Publishes' with no details about side effects, reversibility, permissions, or response behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, sacrificing informative content for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and the simplicity of the tool, the description still leaves major gaps: it does not explain what publishing entails, whether it is idempotent, or how it relates to transport or lifecycle operations. A more complete description would address these aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (name and version), so the description does not need to elaborate. The baseline of 3 applies because the description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Publishes') and the resource ('a service binding'), which is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling 'unPublishServiceBinding'. However, it does not elaborate on the exact meaning of 'publish' in this context, so it stops short of fully differentiating from related binding tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like unPublishServiceBinding or bindingDetails. The description simply states the action without providing usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Perform ABAP syntax check', which implies a validation operation but does not disclose side effects, required session/permissions, or return format. No information about whether the check modifies anything or what happens on success/failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant wording, which is good for front-loading. However, it is so brief that it under-specifies important behavioral and usage details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate to fully understand the tool. It does not state what the syntax check returns (e.g., error list), whether it requires an active session, or any limitations. The complexity is low but the information is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter 'cdsUrl' with no description (0% coverage). The description only mentions 'CDS URL', which is effectively the parameter name and adds no additional semantics about URL format, scheme, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Perform ABAP syntax check with CDS URL', which is a specific action with a clear resource and input type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like syntaxCheckCode by specifying CDS URL, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as syntaxCheckCode or syntaxCheckTypes. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 disclosing behavior. 'Runs unit tests' gives no information about side effects, return values, session requirements, or whether tests are executed synchronously. This is a complete lack of behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (four words) and front-loads the core action. There is no redundant or unnecessary content, making it efficient, though it lacks the substance needed for full clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what happens when the tool is invoked—whether results are returned, how they are structured, or any side effects. The minimal text fails to provide this operational context, leaving a significant gap for a tool that might be used to trigger tests.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, which is the baseline for a score of 3. The tool description itself adds no extra meaning to the parameters; it simply restates the tool's purpose. The schema parameter descriptions are adequate but not enriched by the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Runs unit tests.' clearly states the action (runs) and the resource (unit tests). It is specific enough to understand the core purpose, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'unitTestEvaluation' or 'unitTestOccurrenceMarkers', earning a 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or relationship to other tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'Validate parameters' without explaining side effects, return behavior, error handling, or whether it performs any checks or just returns a verdict. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is a single declarative sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded but under-specified; however, the conciseness itself is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description must provide a more complete explanation. It lacks any mention of return values, success/failure criteria, or relation to object creation, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'options' is a string with no schema description, and the description adds no meaning about its format or contents. 'Validate parameters' does not clarify what 'options' should contain, leaving the agent without critical semantic information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Validate') and the resource ('parameters for a new ABAP object'). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like createObject or syntaxCheckCode, the focus on parameter validation makes the purpose reasonably unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it should precede createObject or how it differs from syntax check tools. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action without mentioning side effects, prerequisites, or consequences of activation. For a state-changing operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence and is front-loaded with the action. However, it is arguably too sparse, missing necessary context that could help an agent understand the tool's role. It's efficient but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutating nature, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't explain why to use this tool, what activation entails, or how parameters interrelate. An agent would need more context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description's mention of 'name and URL' adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (activate) and the resource (ABAP object), and specifies the input method (by name and URL). It implies a single object compared to sibling 'activateObjects', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with that alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs alternatives. It doesn't mention activateObjects or any other sibling, nor does it state when not to use it. The singular 'an ABAP object' is the only implicit hint, but there is no explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieves', implying a read operation, but discloses nothing about side effects, authentication requirements, or return behavior. The complete absence of context makes this inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), but this is under-specification rather than concise clarity. It fails to provide any additional context about the ticket or its purpose, so the single sentence does not earn its place as a useful tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (no params, no output schema) and no annotations, the description should at least explain what a reentrance ticket is, what it returns, or when it is used. The description offers none of this, leaving the agent completely uninformed about the tool's practical purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rules, a baseline of 4 applies for tools with no parameters. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since there are no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Retrieves' and a clear resource 'reentrance ticket', which distinguishes it from all sibling tools (none of which mention tickets). Even though the resource is somewhat domain-specific, the verb+resource structure clearly states what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 or how it relates to alternatives like login/logout/dropSession. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, so the agent receives no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description 'Previews a rename refactoring' gives no detail about side effects, what the preview returns, or whether it is safe. The term 'preview' implies a read-only operation, but that is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It is not a tautology and is appropriately brief, but it lacks enough substance to be considered genuinely helpful on this dimension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not provide sufficient context. It fails to explain what a 'preview' entails, how the transport parameter factors in, or how this relates to the renameExecure/renameEvaluate steps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the renameRefactoring object or the transport parameter beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Previews') and the resource ('a rename refactoring'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like renameEvaluate or renameExecute.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention that this should be used before executing a rename or how it differs from the evaluate or execute variants.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Sets the pretty printer settings,' implying a mutable operation, but does not disclose side effects, persistence scope, prerequisites, or return behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to understand 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it borders on tautological with the tool name and provides no additional detail or structure. It is efficient but not informative, so it earns a 3.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only two simple parameters and no output schema, but the description lacks context about the effect of the settings, how they relate to sibling tools, or any practical usage context. It is not complete enough for an agent to decide when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('style' and 'indent'), so the schema already documents them. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets the pretty printer settings' clearly identifies a setter action for pretty printer settings. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'prettyPrinterSetting' or 'prettyPrinter' that may serve related purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention that this tool modifies settings, nor does it reference related tools for reading or configuring pretty printer settings. There is no context for when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states that it retrieves a list of traces, without explaining behavior such as pagination, ordering, filtering by user, or return format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words, which is structurally efficient. However, it is under-specified, lacking enough detail to be truly helpful, and does not include any context or structure that would aid selection. It sits between a tautology and a fully informative description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no annotations, no output schema), the description should at least clarify what 'traces' refers to and how the user parameter affects results. It does neither, and with many trace-related siblings, the missing context makes it incomplete for reliable selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the single optional parameter 'user' with 'The user.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not enrich the parameter's purpose or any constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 (list of traces), which is a specific and understandable purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling trace tools like tracesListRequests or tracesHitList, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when or why an agent should invoke it, making it purely informational rather than directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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. The description only says 'Retrieves transport configurations' and gives no information about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what the returned data looks like, making it insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is concise, though it under-specifies the tool's behavior; however, this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain return values or distinguish this tool from the many sibling tools with similar names. It only states the basic retrieval action, leaving out critical context about what 'transport configurations' entails and how this tool relates to others.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are none to describe, and the schema fully covers the parameter space with 100% coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves transport configurations with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'getTransportConfiguration', which appears to perform a similar function, so it lacks the scope and differentiation needed for a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getTransportConfiguration', 'setTransportsConfig', or 'createTransportsConfig'. The description provides no context for selection, leaving the agent to guess which tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description alone must disclose behavior. It only says 'Retrieves', which implies a read operation, but gives no details about return format, error conditions, or side effects. This is as minimal as transparency can get.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundancy. It conveys the core purpose in minimal words, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no parameters and no output schema, yet the description still fails to explain what the ADT compatibility graph is or what the response contains. It is a bare statement that leaves the agent without enough context to anticipate the tool's output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. Per the rubric, this warrants a baseline of 4 since there is no parameter information to add.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Retrieves') and a specific resource ('the ADT compatibility graph'), which distinguishes it from a vague restatement. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like adtDiscovery or adtCoreDiscovery, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling ADT tools. No context, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation via 'retrieves' but does not disclose output format, error behavior, or any access requirements. This is minimal for a simple tool but lacks useful behavioral context beyond what the name already suggests.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity. No wasted words, and the sentence is front-loaded with the verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should indicate what information is returned, but it only says 'information.' It also lacks usage context and behavioral details, making it incomplete for a fully understood tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the variant parameter is described clearly as 'The name of the ATC check variant.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves information about an ATC check variant, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling ATC tools like atcWorklists or atcCustomizing, so it scores a 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 only states what it does, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where other tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the tool requests an exemption, implying a write operation, but omits any details on side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or response outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy or wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, making it easy to scan. It is slightly under-specified given the tool's complexity, but the conciseness itself is effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one complex nested object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too minimal to explain what constitutes a valid proposal, what the response contains, or how it fits into the broader ATC exemption workflow. This is a significant completeness gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the only parameter ('proposal') with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies. However, the schema's property description is generic and does not explain the proposal structure, but that is beyond the description's scope.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Requests') and the resource ('an ATC exemption'). It is a specific verb+resource pair that identifies the tool's purpose, though it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like atcExemptProposal or atcWorklists.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 only states the action, without context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or which sibling tools are not appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' implies read-only, but it does not explain what a worklist contains, whether it includes all findings or respects filters, or any other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately concise for a simple retrieval, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and only a one-sentence description, the tool lacks crucial context: what worklists are returned, the structure of the response, and how parameters affect results. This is inadequate for a tool with four parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, and the schema descriptions themselves are minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and names a precise resource ('ATC worklists'), clearly indicating a read operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling ATC tools like atcUsers or atcCustomizing, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. It neither names alternative tools nor provides context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral context, but it only uses the verb 'List' to imply a read-only operation. It does not disclose return format, permissions, prerequisites, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for operational expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise, though under-specified; however, that is a completeness issue rather than a failure of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with one param and no output schema, but the description provides no information about the return value or the meaning of 'class components'. Without annotations, the description does not sufficiently orient an agent for successful invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter details. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already describes the 'url' parameter as 'The URL of the class'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('class components'), making the basic purpose apparent. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes 'class components' or differentiate from similar tools like 'classIncludes' or 'objectStructure'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 simply states its function, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, placing the burden on the description. It only states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose return format, error behavior, permissions, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is tightly front-loaded and efficient for a simple getter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the returned 'includes structure' contains or provide broader context. It merely restates the tool's purpose without elaboration, leaving the agent without sufficient information about expected results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'clas' with the description 'The class name', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get class includes structure' clearly states a specific verb and resource, indicating the tool retrieves the include structure of a class. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like classComponents or objectStructure, though the reference to 'includes' distinguishes it somewhat.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without information on selecting it over other structure-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'creates,' implying a mutation, but does not mention required lock semantics, permissions, side effects, or return behavior. The required lockHandle parameter hints at locking, but the description neither explains nor acknowledges it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it very concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the lockHandle requirement, what a test include is, or what the expected result is, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (clas, transport, lockHandle) already described. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Creates a test include') and a target resource ('for a class'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like createTransport or createObject. It lacks elaboration on what a 'test include' is, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as classIncludes or createObject. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe read operation ('Retrieves') but does not disclose what is returned, whether authentication is required, error behavior, or how the optional flags affect the response.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned or how the optional boolean flags modify the result, leaving an agent without enough context for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific context beyond what the schema already provides; the schema descriptions for path and the three boolean flags are clear and self-contained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and names a specific resource ('a DDIC element'), clearly identifying this as a read/information tool. However, it doesn't specify what kind of information is returned, so it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like objectStructure, findDefinition, or getObjectSource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like searchObject or findObjectPath. No context about prerequisites (e.g., login/session), exclusions, or references to sibling tools are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, omitting any side effects, requirements (e.g., existing listener), or permissions. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description 'Stops a debug listener' provides minimal context; it does not explain what a debug listener is, when the tool is applicable, or what the result of the operation is. The description is simply too sparse to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (user, ideId, terminalId, debuggingMode) having a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter semantics, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, warranting the baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stops a debug listener' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from related sibling tools like debuggerListen (which implies starting) and debuggerDeleteBreakpoints. It precisely identifies the action and target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, what prerequisites exist, or how it compares to alternatives. It simply states the function without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only implies a read operation ('Retrieves') but does not state whether it has side effects, requires a session, or what the return value looks like. Since there is no output schema, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and to the point. It is not verbose, but it lacks additional context that would make it more valuable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the list contains, how parameters influence the result, or what the tool returns, making it hard for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but all parameters have descriptions. This is adequate, though the parameter descriptions are terse.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('a list of debugger listeners'), which is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'debuggerListen', which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the many debugger-related sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusionary conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'saves,' implying a write operation, but does not mention side effects, persistence, return values, or any requirements. Critical details for a mutation tool are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded and directly states the action. There is no redundant or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate for a mutation tool. It fails to explain what happens to existing settings, whether any response is returned, or what the settings string should contain. The lack of behavioral and contextual details makes it incomplete for practical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema contains 100% description coverage for the single parameter, which is documented as 'The debugger settings.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already provides the parameter's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool saves debugger settings, using a specific verb and resource. It is not a tautology and conveys the core function. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like setPrettyPrinterSetting or debuggerSetVariableValue, though the focus on 'debugger settings' provides some distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without providing context on prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. This leaves the agent without direction on placement in a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but 'Sets breakpoints.' reveals nothing about side effects, requirements, or state changes. It does not mention whether this modifies a debug session, whether breakpoints are replaced, or what the deactivated parameter does in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose without extraneous detail, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 10 parameters, 6 required, and no output schema, this description is severely under-specified. It fails to explain the tool's role in the debugging workflow, any setup requirements, or the effect of setting breakpoints within a session, making it inadequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets breakpoints.' uses a clear verb and resource, indicating the tool's basic purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from related debugger tools like debuggerDeleteBreakpoints or debuggerAttach, relying on the name alone for differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or comparisons to sibling debugger tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 only states that the tool 'sets a value', which is a mutation, but does not disclose side effects, dependencies (e.g., needing an attached debugger), or failure conditions (e.g., read-only variables). This is a minimal restatement of the tool's name with no additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff, which is appropriate for a simple setter tool. However, it lacks any structured guidance or supplementary notes that could enhance its utility without adding verbosity. It is efficient but not exceptionally structured, earning a 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is part of a debugger workflow (evidenced by sibling tools like debuggerAttach and debuggerStep), but the description fails to mention any operational prerequisites or contextual usage details. There is no output schema to clarify return values, and the description does not compensate with notes about session requirements, error behavior, or typical use cases. The description is therefore incomplete for a mutation tool in a complex environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes both parameters (variableName and value), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any information beyond what the schema already provides, so 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Sets' and identifies the resource 'debugger variable', making the tool's function clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling debugger tools like debuggerVariables (which likely lists variables) and debuggerStep (which changes execution state). The intent is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of prerequisites such as an active debugger session, a selected stack frame, or that the variable must be in scope. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the user to infer usage context from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't state whether side effects exist, whether a debugger attachment is required, or what the return structure is. This is insufficient given the lack of annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and fits the tool's simplicity, though it is arguably too sparse to convey full context. However, as conciseness is about eliminating waste, this scores well.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks context about the stack trace's format or any connection to the debugger lifecycle. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on what is returned would improve completeness. As it stands, it is minimally viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'semanticURIs' is fully described in the schema as 'Whether to use semantic URIs.' The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and the resource ('debugger stack trace'), making its function unambiguous. It can be distinguished from siblings like debuggerGoToStack (navigation) and debuggerVariables (variables), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other debugger tools such as debuggerGoToStack. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites like an active debug session or what makes this tool the preferred choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Evaluates', which hints at a non-mutating operation, but it does not specify whether this is a dry-run, what data it returns, or any side effects or permissions required. This is insufficient transparency for a refactoring-related tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description is too terse to provide complete contextual understanding, especially regarding what 'evaluate' produces and how it fits with the extract method workflow. More context about the evaluation result and relationship to siblings would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are described in the schema with clear, concise definitions. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Evaluates') on a specific resource ('an extract method refactoring'). It clearly indicates the tool's function, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like extractMethodPreview or extractMethodExecute.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as extractMethodPreview or extractMethodExecute. The description lacks any contextual or conditional usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'previews' a refactoring, but it does not explicitly state that this is a non-mutating, read-only operation, nor does it describe what the preview includes or any permissions required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, grammatically complete sentence with no fluff. It is efficiently front-loaded with the action and target, though it might be slightly under-specified in content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the preview returns or how the agent should interpret the result. It also does not mention any side effects or preconditions, leaving the tool functionally opaque for a one-parameter, no-annotation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'proposal' parameter with the description 'The extract method proposal.' The tool description adds no further semantic meaning about the proposal format or how it is used in the preview, so this dimension is adequately served by the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Previews' and names the resource 'extract method refactoring,' which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like extractMethodExecute and extractMethodEvaluate. However, it does not elaborate on what the preview entails, so it is not as complete as it could be.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the sibling tools extractMethodExecute or extractMethodEvaluate. No prerequisites, alternatives, or context are mentioned, leaving the agent without direction on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explain what information is returned, whether authentication is needed, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that may access external systems.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and appropriately sized, though it lacks detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what 'information' is returned. It fails to do so, and also omits critical context like credential requirements and relationship to similar tools, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only specifying the repository is external.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Retrieves information') and resource ('external Git repository'). However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like 'remoteRepoInfo', which likely also retrieves repository information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as authentication for private repositories, or contrast with similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'retrieves', implying read-only, but doesn't disclose any other behavioral aspects such as return format, error handling, or permissions needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action. It contains no unnecessary information, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a 6-parameter schema and no output schema, the description only provides a one-line summary. It doesn't explain how parameters relate or what 'contents' means in this context, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 6 parameters have schema descriptions covering 100%, so the schema already documents them. The description adds no additional parameter-specific context, earning the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves node contents in an ABAP repository tree, using a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from similar sibling tools like objectStructure or searchObject, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only implies a read operation via 'Get' but provides no details on response format, required permissions, side effects, or error behavior. This is insufficient given the absence of annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, using a single short sentence that is easy to parse. However, it borders on restating the tool name ('objectStructure' -> 'object structure details') and could omit the filler word 'details' without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be contextually complete. It does not clarify what 'object structure' means, how the optional version parameter affects results, or what kind of response to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters (objectUrl and version) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get object structure details' clearly states a read operation on an object's structure with a specific verb and resource. However, 'structure' is ambiguous and does not differentiate from siblings like objectTypes or nodeContents, which could also provide structural information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites mentioned. The description is a bare statement with no contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states that it 'retrieves information,' which implies a read operation but does not explain authentication requirements, error behavior, or any side effects. It does not disclose any potential pitfalls with the user/password parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It directly states the purpose, making it front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values and usage, but it is limited to a one-line purpose statement. The tool accepts credentials (user/password) without any note on security or required setup, leaving the agent without enough information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (repo, user, password), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'retrieves' and identifies the resource as 'remote Git repository.' However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'gitExternalRepoInfo,' which may serve a similar purpose, so it is clear but lacks distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor any context about prerequisites or scenarios. The description does not mention any competing tools or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action 'executes' without disclosing any side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or what the result of the refactoring is. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence. It states the core action without fluff, but is arguably under-specified. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but lacks sufficient detail for safe invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a complex nested parameter and no output schema. The description only covers the basic action, missing workflow context (e.g., needing prior preview/evaluate), error behavior, and return information. Compared to sibling tools like renamePreview and renameEvaluate, the description is minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage with 'refactoring' described as 'The rename refactoring.' The tool description doesn't add any further detail about the structure or required fields of this object. Since coverage is high, the description is adequate but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Executes a rename refactoring' uses a specific verb ('executes') and names the resource, making the core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like renameEvaluate and renamePreview, which represent earlier stages, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 relative to alternatives. It doesn't mention that renameEvaluate/renamePreview should precede execution, nor any conditions or prerequisites. This is a clear gap for a tool that likely has a dependent workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Retrieves') but does not disclose return format, pagination, permission needs, error behavior, or any side effects. The minimal text leaves the agent with little insight beyond the implied safe read.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core function in an easily scannable manner. There is no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the revisions response looks like and when to use the tool. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without knowledge of the return value structure or typical use cases. The extreme brevity is insufficient for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (objectUrl and clsInclude), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters interact or what 'class include' affects. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Retrieves') and resource ('revisions for an object'), which is more specific than a bare tautology. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools or clarify what kind of object or revision is meant, so it lacks full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, use cases, or references to sibling tools. The agent must infer appropriateness from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Runs' does not specify whether the SQL query is read-only or can mutate data, nor does it mention output format, error behavior, or permissions. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely executes arbitrary SQL.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a tool whose parameters are already documented in the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too thin. It does not explain what happens after the query runs (return format, row limits, errors), nor does it disclose potential side effects. An agent would lack critical context for selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (decode, sqlQuery, rowNumber) are adequately documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but it doesn't need to compensate for missing schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Runs a SQL query on the target system.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from the many sibling tools, none of which are SQL-related. However, the phrase 'target system' is somewhat vague, so it doesn't fully specify the context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to other tools like runClass or searchObject. The description offers no decision-relevant context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits on its own. It states the action ('stages changes') but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication (despite user/password parameters), or what the impact on the index is.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary verb and object, making it easy to parse, though it sacrifices informative content for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool description is minimal, with no output schema and no annotations to rely on. It fails to explain the return value, side effects, or prerequisites for using the tool, leaving the agent without key context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage (repo, user, password), providing the baseline. The description adds no information about parameter semantics, such as the structure of the repo object or how user/password are used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'stages' and identifies the resource ('changes in a Git repository'), which clearly conveys a git staging operation and distinguishes from sibling tools like pushRepo or gitPullRepo. However, it does not specify scope (e.g., all changes vs. selected files) or the staging target, so it is clear but not fully complete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 git-related siblings. It does not mention use cases such as preparing a commit or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It gives no information about prerequisites, side effects, permissions, or return values, making it entirely non-transparent about its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words, effectively front-loading the core purpose. However, it lacks additional structure or elaboration, which prevents a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is still insufficient. It does not explain what a trace configuration is, how the config string should be formatted, or what happens upon creation. This incomplete context makes it difficult for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the single 'config' parameter with description 'The trace configuration.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, warranting a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates a trace configuration' states a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('trace configuration'), which is clear and distinct from sibling tools like tracesDeleteConfiguration or tracesList.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, no exclusions, and no contextual hints. The description is only a statement of action without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states only that the tool retrieves information, implying a read operation, but gives no detail on side effects, required permissions, or what exactly 'database access information' includes. The behavior is vague and underdisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without extraneous words. It earns its place with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and a complex trace API context (many sibling tools), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the returned 'database access information' looks like, how it relates to other trace data, or what the optional 'withSystemEvents' flag affects. A description this short leaves critical gaps for an agent deciding whether this tool serves its need.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both 'id' and 'withSystemEvents'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and the schema descriptions are minimal but present. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the description doesn't need to compensate, but it also provides no extra context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a clear resource ('database access information') with the target object ('a trace'), making the tool's core function clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling trace tools like tracesHitList or tracesStatements, but the resource name provides some differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other trace-related tools. The description does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid trace ID) or contexts where this should be preferred over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'Deletes a trace,' which conveys destructiveness but lacks details on whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or what happens if the trace does not exist. The description adds minimal information beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could arguably be more explanatory without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete tool, the description is incomplete. It does not mention any side effects, reversibility, or behavior when the trace is missing. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with the description 'The ID of the trace.' The tool description adds no extra meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deletes a trace.' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (trace). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tracesDeleteConfiguration which deletes a configuration, not a trace. However, it's terse and doesn't explicitly mention that a trace ID is required, though the schema covers that.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as tracesDeleteConfiguration, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing trace ID or how to obtain one. There is no context about the deletion workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 merely repeats the tool's name and does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, reversible, requires permissions, or has cascading effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero filler words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimally viable for a simple delete operation, but it lacks any behavioral context such as irreversibility or effects. While the parameter is fully documented, the absence of annotations and usage guidance leaves gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra semantic value, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deletes a trace configuration' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'tracesDelete' by specifying 'configuration'. It is unambiguous and directly states the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'tracesDelete' or 'tracesCreateConfiguration'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, conditions, or preferred usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only that the tool 'retrieves' the hit list, implying a read operation, but does not reveal whether system events are included by default, any side effects, or the return format. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and is front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too minimal for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain what a 'hit list' contains, what the 'withSystemEvents' parameter means, or what the response looks like. Given the complexity of the surrounding tool set, this lack of context leaves the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes both parameters (id and withSystemEvents) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, so 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and the resource ('the hit list for a trace'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tracesList or tracesStatements, so it lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus other trace-related tools, nor does it state prerequisites (such as requiring a valid trace ID) or exclusions. The schema implies an id is needed, but the description offers no contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only says 'Retrieves a list of trace requests.' It does not disclose any details about scope, response shape, pagination, or side effects. The optional 'user' parameter is not tied to behavior, so the tool's actual behavior remains opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is perfectly concise and immediately readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is minimal (1 optional param, no output schema, no annotations) but the description still feels incomplete. It does not explain what a 'trace request' is, how results are returned, or how this differs from tracesList. Given the surrounding sibling clutter, more context is needed for safe autonomous use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'user' parameter, but the schema text 'The user.' is trivially uninformative. The tool description does not clarify how 'user' filters or affects the list. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and there is no active contradiction, so a middle score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Retrieves' and the resource 'a list of trace requests', making the core purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish from closely named siblings like tracesList, and 'trace requests' is not defined, so some ambiguity remains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many trace-related siblings (tracesList, tracesHitList, tracesStatements, etc.). No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Retrieves') but doesn't describe return format, side effects, or any constraints. Minimal behavioral insight is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with clear structure, no wasted words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, though that is more a matter of completeness than conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'statements' means, what the options do, and what the response contains. It does none of this, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter context, living baseline at 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and the resource ('statements for a trace'). However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like tracesHitList or tracesDbAccess, so it lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 only states what it does, not the context or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Deletes a transport' without mentioning irreversibility, impact on associated tasks or objects, or any confirmation requirements. This is insufficient for a destructive operation, as an agent cannot anticipate the consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. While it is efficient, it is also under-specified for a delete operation, but the conciseness dimension focuses on structure and length, which are appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context for a destructive tool. It lacks information about error handling, reversibility, preconditions, or postconditions. The single-sentence description is not sufficient to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides a description for the single parameter 'transportNumber' ('The transport number.'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how the parameter is used or any constraints, so 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deletes a transport' clearly identifies the action (delete) and the resource (transport), and the verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like transportInfo or transportRelease. However, it does not elaborate on what a 'transport' refers to or specify any scope, so it lacks full specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or side conditions. The description merely states the action without providing context about appropriate use cases, such as when a transport can be deleted or what checks are required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Get,' implying a read operation but not disclosing output format, side effects, error handling, or any behavioral constraints. With no annotations, the description carries a heavy burden that it does not fulfill.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'transport information' consists of, how the optional parameters affect results, or what the tool returns. The large sibling set further suggests more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (objSourceUrl, devClass, operation) already described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'transport information for an object source,' using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getTransportConfiguration or transportConfigurations, though the 'object source' qualifier adds some distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling list includes many transport-related tools (e.g., transportConfigurations, getTransportConfiguration), but the description does not clarify the intended use case or prerequisites, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation via 'Retrieves', but doesn't disclose safety, auth requirements, rate limits, or return behavior. Minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb. It earns its place but is arguably too sparse, missing opportunities to add valuable context in the same concise format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having two parameters and no output schema, the description doesn't explain what the markers are, how url/source are used, or what response to expect. It is much less informative than the complexity of the tool warrants.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes both parameters (url and source) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about how the parameters relate to the retrieval, so 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action: 'Retrieves unit test occurrence markers.' It names a specific resource type, distinguishing it from broader unit test tools like unitTestRun and unitTestEvaluation, though it doesn't explain what 'occurrence markers' are.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The one-sentence description provides no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 only states the action without revealing any consequences, reversibility, permission requirements, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely mutates state, as seen in the sibling 'publishServiceBinding' context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and is easy to parse. However, it is under-specified, but that is captured in other dimensions; as pure conciseness, it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple with two fully described parameters and no output schema, the lack of annotations means the description must compensate by explaining behavioral context. It fails to mention what 'unpublish' entails, whether it is destructive, reversible, or requires special permissions, making the tool incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'name' and 'version' parameters having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter context beyond the literal action, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given that the schema already handles parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Unpublishes' and a clear resource 'service binding', making the tool's primary function unambiguous. It also naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'publishServiceBinding' by being the inverse operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It is a single declarative sentence with no contextual information about typical use cases or conditions that would warrant unpublishing a service binding.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'Retrieves', implying a read operation, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or what 'transports' includes. This is minimal and largely restates the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words or filler. It is concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain what the tool returns and how parameters affect results. It does neither, and the minimal wording is insufficient given the complexity of the transport-related sibling set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'user' and 'targets' having descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('transports for a user'), which clearly indicates the tool's scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools that create, delete, or release transports, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other retrieval tools like transportInfo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the many transport-related siblings. No context, exclusions, or alternative tool references are given, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 transparency. The verb 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but the description adds no further behavioral context, such as return format, side effects, or permissions. It mostly restates the tool name without additional insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, efficiently communicating the core action. However, it is extremely terse, almost to the point of under-specification, but for a simple tool it remains acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of context. It fails to explain what annotation definitions are, what the response contains, or any usage context, leaving an agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to add parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'annotation definitions', clearly stating the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as loadTypes or objectTypes, though the resource itself is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or scenarios where annotation definitions would be needed, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'Creates transport configurations,' which implies a mutation, but does not explain side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens during creation. This is insufficient for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it is extremely terse, lacking any additional context that could make it more helpful, so it does not earn a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of information. It is too thin to be complete, especially given the ambiguous sibling tools. It does not explain what a transport configuration is, how this differs from related tools, or what the tool's effect is beyond the bare concept of creation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it also adds no additional context about what a transport configuration is or how creation is specified. Since there are no parameters, this score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates transport configurations' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (transport configurations). However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'createTransport' or 'setTransportsConfig', so it lacks sibling differentiation. It is not vague or tautological, but it is minimal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With numerous sibling tools for similar operations, the absence of usage guidelines is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The verb 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation but no details about side effects, error behavior, or required authorization are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the verb and the resource, making it very concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is nearly sufficient. However, it doesn't explicitly state the return value format or distinguish itself from related ATC tools, leaving minor gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides a 100% description for the single parameter findingUri, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the contact URI for an ATC finding using the specific verb 'Retrieves' and a precise resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like atcChangeContact, but the action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 is purely definitional and lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It only states a read operation ('Retrieves') without covering auth needs, return format, pagination, or other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no redundant or extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain return values or usage context. It is too minimal for an agent to fully understand what 'ATC users' entails or what the response will look like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific detail because none is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' and identifies the resource as 'a list of ATC users', providing clear purpose. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like systemUsers, though it does not explicitly differentiate among ATC-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context for selecting it over other user-related tools and provides no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It merely states 'Create' without disclosing side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately brief, though it could include more detail without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-sentence description does not cover prerequisites, expected behavior, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema's own field descriptions, which are minimal but present.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new transport request' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like createTransportsConfig (which creates transport configuration) and transportDelete/release.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor any prerequisites such as login or configuration requirements. The description simply states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the navigation action without explaining side effects (e.g., changing the current debugger frame, affecting subsequent variable/step commands) or prerequisites like an active debug session.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, directly front-loaded with the action and target, containing no unnecessary words or repetitive information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable but lacks important context such as when it should be invoked relative to other debugger tools and what effect navigation has on subsequent operations. This leaves clear gaps in the agent's ability to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'urlOrPosition' is already described in the schema as 'The URL or position of the stack entry,' and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so the baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Navigates to a specific stack entry in the debugger' uses a specific verb ('navigates') and resource ('stack entry in the debugger'), making the core function clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like debuggerStackTrace (lists stack frames) or debuggerStep (steps execution), though it does not explicitly reference them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool (e.g., after obtaining a stack trace) or when alternatives might be more appropriate, leaving the agent without guidance on selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It fails to mention that deletion is irreversible, that a lockHandle is required (though present in schema), or what happens to related objects/transports. This is a significant transparency gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is clear and front-loaded, with no waste. However, it is so terse that it omits important context like lock requirements, making it slightly less effective than a concise yet slightly more explanatory description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain prerequisites (locking), return values, and side effects. It only states the basic deletion action, leaving the agent to infer behavior from parameter names. This is incomplete for a destructive operation with a required lockHandle.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (objectUrl, transport, lockHandle), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deletes an ABAP object from the system' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like transportDelete (which handles transport requests). The scope is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor any mention of prerequisites such as locking the object. The required lockHandle parameter implies a lock is needed, but the description does not state this or explain the delete workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'Retrieves', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error behavior, or return format. This is minimal behavioral context for a tool with no annotation backup.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter retrieval tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explicitly mention return values or error cases, and given the similarity of sibling tools, more context could be helpful. However, the schema covers the parameter and the name is descriptive, making it a contextually average description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the 'url' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' and names the resource 'specific transport configuration', making the core function clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like transportConfigurations or transportsByConfig, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as transportConfigurations or transportsByConfig. There are no mentions of exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining side effects, reversibility, permissions needed, or what 'unlink' entails (e.g., whether it only removes the remote reference or deletes local files). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool, though it could have included more context within the same sentence structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what 'unlink' means operationally, what the consequences are, or any required context. A more complete description would address these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter (repoId) has a schema description ('The ID of the repository.') that fully covers its meaning. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, which already handles the semantics. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unlinks a Git repository.' uses a specific verb ('unlinks') and a clear resource ('Git repository'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling git tools like gitCreateRepo, gitPullRepo, and switchRepoBranch, none of which convey an unlink operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention prerequisites, intended scenarios, or any exclusion criteria relative to other git-related tools such as gitDeleteRepo or deleteObject.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Get list,' which implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or the exact criteria for 'inactive'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal to provide complete context. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'inactive,' how results are ordered, or any other relevant behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states the tool gets a list of inactive objects, using a specific verb and resource. It is clear and concise, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'activateObjects' or 'deleteObject'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'pushes changes' without detailing side effects, authentication requirements, reversibility, or return values. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. While it is terse, it is appropriately concise and conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention how the staging and repo objects interact, what happens after a successful push, or how errors are surfaced. This is a significant gap for a tool with nested object parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema adequately documents the role of each field.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('pushes') and resource ('changes to a Git repository'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitPullRepo or stageRepo. It avoids tautology and immediately conveys the tool's primary function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use pushRepo versus alternative tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing the appropriate scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'retrieves,' implying a read operation, but does not mention any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens with the optional 'targets' parameter. The role of the configuration URI is also unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, the lack of annotations and output schema means the agent receives no information about the response format or how the configuration filters transports. Additional context about distinguishing from getTransportConfiguration would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema with descriptions (configUri and targets), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema already provides sufficient clarification, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Retrieves) and resource (transports) with a qualifier (by configuration), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like transportConfigurations or getTransportConfiguration, which could lead to confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many transport-related alternatives. No context is provided about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or which sibling tools might be more appropriate for other use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly disclose absence of side effects, authentication requirements, return format, or error handling. The behavior is implied but not sufficiently detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, 'Retrieves ATC customizing information,' which is concise and front-loaded with the key verb and object. It contains no filler words and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides a minimal but adequate conceptual understanding. However, it does not specify the structure or content of the returned 'customizing information,' leaving ambiguity that an output schema or more detail could resolve.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this. The description does not need to clarify parameter semantics, and it adds no conflicting details. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to leave undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' and identifies 'ATC customizing information' as the resource, but this is vague and does not distinguish from sibling ATC tools like atcCheckVariant or atcWorklists. The phrase 'customizing information' could refer to many different aspects of ATC configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not help the agent decide between this and related ATC tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, return value, error behavior, or any other behavioral traits. It only states the action, leaving the agent without insight into what happens when the tool is invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the simple functionality and front-loads the key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the niche nature of ATC exemption proposals and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description offers no context about what the proposal is, when to use this retrieval versus atcRequestExemption, or what the response contains. It is too sparse for an agent navigating many related ATC tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes markerId, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does imply the proposal is retrieved for the given marker.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'retrieves' and a clear resource 'ATC exemption proposal', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like atcRequestExemption that imply creation or submission. It clearly states what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or context provided. The description is purely a statement of function without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves data, which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose any requirements such as needing an attached debugger, whether the parent variable must be in scope, or the shape of the returned data. This is a significant gap for a debugger-related tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. No unnecessary detail or filler is present, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the description leaves important gaps. It does not explain how the parent variable should be specified (e.g., the meaning of the array type), what happens if the optional 'parent' parameter is omitted, or what the return value contains. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully guide correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has high coverage (100%) with the parent parameter described as 'The parent variable name.' The tool description does not add further meaning beyond this, but the schema already documents the parameter adequately. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('child variables of a debugger variable'), making the tool's purpose clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'debuggerVariables' by explicitly focusing on child variables, which is a useful differentiator.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage in the context of debugging when child variables are needed, and the sibling tool 'debuggerVariables' suggests a complementary role. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites like an active debugger session or prior variable selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation via 'retrieves,' but it does not specify what details are returned, potential errors, or any side effects. This is adequate but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description should clarify what 'details' are returned, but it remains vague. The undefined term 'feature' also leaves the tool's purpose incomplete for an agent, despite the simple parameter set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'title' with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra semantic information beyond referencing 'a given feature,' so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'retrieves details for a given feature,' using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'collectionFeatureDetails' or clarify what a 'feature' is in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. It simply states the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'retrieves', but does not mention session requirements, error behavior, pagination, or any side effects. The minimal verb gives some transparency but lacks crucial context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is perfectly concise, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter list retrieval, the description provides the core action. However, it lacks any explanation of what feeds are, the structure of the returned list, or any prerequisites like authentication. Given the absence of an output schema, more context would be valuable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete by definition. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but with no parameters, this is acceptable. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'retrieves' and identifies the resource as 'feeds', making the primary purpose clear. However, it does not explain what 'feeds' represents or differentiate from sibling tools, though no sibling appears related to feeds.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 simply states the action without any context about prerequisites or alternative tools. There is no mention of when this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a check occurs, but does not disclose the return type (e.g., boolean), side effects, or any error/edge-case behavior. This is insufficient for a predicate tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter existence check.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the description is minimally viable. However, it omits the return value semantics (e.g., true/false) and does not clarify what 'transport configuration' refers to in context, leaving some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related information, which is acceptable because there is nothing to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb+resource structure: 'Check if transport configuration exists' identifies an existence-check operation on a transport configuration. It is distinct from sibling tools like getTransportConfiguration by emphasizing existence, but it does not explicitly state how it differs from similar configuration tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context (e.g., whether a session must be active). Sibling tools like transportConfigurations and getTransportConfiguration overlap, but no exclusions or selection criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'checks' implies a read-only boolean return, which is a useful behavioral cue. However, it does not disclose return type, error behavior, or handling of non-proposal inputs. This is sufficient for a simple predicate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Checks if...'). It contains no filler or redundancy, earning high marks for conciseness and efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns, but it does not. It also fails to explain what a 'proposal message' is or how the result should be interpreted. Given the low complexity (one parameter) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete for a fully contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'proposal', describing it as 'The ATC exemption proposal.' The tool description only refers to 'a given object,' adding no extra meaning beyond the schema. With full 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Checks if a given object is a proposal message.' The verb 'checks' and the specific resource 'proposal message' provide a clear purpose. It is distinct from siblings like 'atcExemptProposal' or 'atcRequestExemption' because it is a predicate, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other tools. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only hint is the tool's name and the parameter description, but the description itself offers no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the basic action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., discarding local changes, requiring authentication), the behavior when the branch does not exist, or what happens with the optional create parameter. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It earns its place and is easily parsable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 too brief to be fully actionable. It does not explain success/failure conditions, error handling, or the role of optional parameters like user, password, and create. A simple branch switch has enough nuance (e.g., what happens to uncommitted changes) that this description is incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, but because the schema already documents each field (repo, branch, create, etc.), the description does not need to compensate. The schema descriptions are terse but present.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Switches') and a clear resource ('the branch of a Git repository'), unambiguously stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling git tools like gitPullRepo or pushRepo by naming the exact operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or context such as requiring a clean working tree or using the 'create' flag for new branches. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but it does not clarify return format, whether it returns a list or a single item, error behavior, or any special side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is immediately clear and front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning every word.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a minimal but understandable purpose. However, it lacks detail about what 'syntax check types' actually are or what the return payload looks like, which could leave an agent uncertain without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details because there are none. It adds nothing contradictory and the resource name 'syntax check types' gives some context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Retrieves syntax check types' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like syntaxCheckCode and syntaxCheckCdsUrl by referring to 'types' rather than code or CDS URL checks, but it does not explicitly separate itself from those related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different syntax-related tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the basic action. It does not disclose side effects, permissions required, behavior when adding an existing user, or return values. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It communicates the core action efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter operation, the description is minimal, but given no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of return values or error conditions, it is not complete enough. The tool's side effects and context are absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, and while the schema's descriptions are somewhat tautological ('The user to add.', 'The transport number.'), they are present. No extra semantics are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Adds a user to a transport.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like createTransport and transportSetOwner. It unambiguously states the action and target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description is purely declarative and does not help the agent choose among related transport-management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' clearly implies a read-only operation, but no additional context is given (e.g., auth requirements, response format, potential errors). The description is not misleading but provides minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and resource, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits what 'details' includes, how the URL should be formatted, and how this tool relates to similar siblings. Adequate for a minimal retrieval tool but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, as the only parameter 'url' has a description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it simply repeats the idea of a URL for a collection feature. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves details') and the target resource ('collection feature'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's basic purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'featureDetails', which may operate on a similar concept.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'featureDetails' or 'findCollectionByUrl'. The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. Only states 'Authenticate' without disclosing session creation, credential requirements, side effects, or outcome. Lacks any behavioral detail beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no filler, fully front-loaded and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple no-parameter tool, but description lacks context about session lifecycle or prerequisite relationship with sibling tools. Adequate for invocation but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so description needs no parameter info. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tool is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Authenticate' and resource 'ABAP system', clearly distinguishing from siblings like logout and dropSession. It is unambiguous as a session login operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use vs alternatives, no mention that login is prerequisite for other tools, and no exclusions. Sibling logout/dropSession imply session management but no explicit relation is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the formatting action but does not mention the return value, whether the input is modified in place, or error handling, leaving the agent uncertain about what it receives back after invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant details. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, so the description is minimally viable. However, the lack of an output schema and absence of return-value information means the agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior, leaving a notable gap for a no-annotation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single 'source' parameter is fully documented in the schema with 'The ABAP source code to format.' The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Formats ABAP code using the pretty printer,' providing a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like prettyPrinterSetting, but the action is unambiguous and easy to distinguish from unrelated tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: this tool is used when ABAP source code needs formatting. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over related tools (e.g., prettyPrinterSetting) or any exclusions, so it barely meets the implied-usage level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. 'Retrieves' clearly indicates a read operation, but the description does not disclose the return format, behavior of optional parameters like decode or sqlQuery, or any prerequisites or limits. It adds minimal context beyond the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence contains exactly the essential information with no filler words or unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should clarify the return value; 'contents' is vague but acceptable. The optional parameters (sqlQuery, rowNumber, decode) are not described in the tool description, but the schema covers them. The description is adequate but not comprehensive, especially given the number of sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters, so the description itself adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema covers the parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'retrieves the contents of an ABAP table' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nodeContents by explicitly mentioning ABAP table, though it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 compared to similar tools like runQuery or nodeContents. There is no mention of contexts, exclusions, or alternative approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action without revealing side effects (e.g., whether the previous owner is overwritten), required permissions, or error conditions. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that earns its place without any waste. It is front-loaded with the key action and object, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks important context such as the meaning of 'owner' in this domain, potential side effects, or relationship to sibling tools. The absence of annotations makes this a clear gap for a tool that mutates state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters described ('The target user' and 'The transport number'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets the owner of a transport' uses a specific verb (sets) and resource (owner of a transport), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like transportAddUser (which adds a user) and transportRelease. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as transportAddUser or transportRelease. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Activate ABAP objects', which implies a mutating operation, but lacks details about side effects, prerequisites, error handling, or reversibility. The preauditRequested parameter hints at optional checks, but this is not explained in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Activate', contains no filler, and is appropriately concise. Every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response contains, possible errors, activation order, or transport implications. The existence of similar sibling tools like activateByName suggests more differentiation guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds little beyond the phrase 'using object references', which aligns with the objects parameter. Since the schema carries the explanatory burden, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Activate ABAP objects using object references' clearly states the verb (activate), the target (ABAP objects), and the method (object references). This distinguishes it from sibling tool 'activateByName', which activates by name, making the purpose highly specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is used when object references are available ('using object references'), which suggests a usage scenario but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like activateByName. There is no explicit mention of exclusions or alternative tool selection, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, it does not disclose the exact scope of repositories (e.g., local, remote, configured), output format, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap given the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that effectively states the core purpose. It is not overly verbose, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters, output schema, or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It fails to specify what kind of Git repositories are listed (e.g., all repositories, remote repos, or repositories tied to the current session), making it somewhat ambiguous in the broader context of sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none, but this is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and the resource ('a list of Git repositories'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitCreateRepo and gitPullRepo by focusing on listing rather than modifying repositories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as gitExternalRepoInfo or remoteRepoInfo. It also lacks any context about prerequisites or intended use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Terminate ABAP session' but does not mention side effects (e.g., session invalidation, whether it is destructive, or if re-authentication is required) or return values. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action without extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite being a simple action, the description lacks essential context about the session lifecycle—whether it terminates the whole user session or just a client connection, what impact it has on authentication, and what the expected response is. With no output schema or annotations, this description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the absence of parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Terminate ABAP session' uses the specific verb 'Terminate' and clearly identifies the resource ('ABAP session'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'dropSession' through its direct naming, even though no explicit comparison is made.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'login' or 'dropSession'. The description lacks any contextual direction, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not disclose return value, error handling, authentication requirements, or whether it's read-only, which are important for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without excess words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but lacks context about return values or error behavior. The absence of annotations means the agent has limited information about what happens on success or failure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single 'url' parameter fully described. The description adds no further detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Finds'), resource ('collection'), and method ('by its URL'). It distinguishes itself from sibling find tools by focusing specifically on collections, not objects or definitions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a collection URL is available but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The context is minimal, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not explain what 'health' includes, whether the operation is read-only, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameterless health check, the description covers the core purpose, but it lacks detail about expected output or behavioral side effects. Given no output schema, a brief note on return values would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema fully captures this (100% coverage). Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to elaborate, so it meets the baseline for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check server health and connectivity' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which perform a health check role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool's unique purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves a list' correctly implies a read-only operation, but it does not reveal potential authentication requirements, response format, or any side-effect-free guarantees beyond the verb itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless read tool, the description adequately conveys that the output is a list of system users. However, given no output schema, it could add a bit more context about the nature of the returned data (e.g., user IDs, names), but this is not a critical gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered vacuously. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4 since there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a list of system users, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like userTransports or atcUsers, but the term 'system users' is distinct enough to avoid obvious confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no context about what scenarios warrant calling systemUsers over related user-oriented tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool clears the local session cache, which implies a client-side operation, but it does not explain side effects, whether it affects authentication, or whether it is safe to invoke at any time.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Clear local session cache'. It contains no filler, and every word adds meaning, achieving maximum conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless operation, the description sufficiently states the action and scope ('local cache'). It is almost complete, though it could explicitly mention that it does not log the user out or affect server state. However, given the simplicity, it is largely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the empty schema is self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Clear') and a specific resource ('local session cache'), clearly indicating what the tool does. The word 'local' distinguishes it from session-related siblings like logout, which likely affect the server-side session.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to alternatives such as logout. It is a bare statement of function without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Retrieves') but does not describe the return format, error behavior, or any requirements such as authentication. For a simple read tool, this is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently states the action and target resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description at least indicates what is returned ('main programs'). For a simple one-parameter read tool, this is largely sufficient, though it does not elaborate on response structure or preconditions like session requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which already defines 'includeUrl' as 'The URL of the include.' With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' and identifies the resource as 'main programs for a given include', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like classIncludes or loadTypes. It is immediately clear what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when one needs main programs for an include, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites or context where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Retrieves' implies a non-mutating operation, but it does not mention any side effects, auth requirements, or return format. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that states the action and resource clearly, with no filler words. It is front-loaded and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is sufficient to convey the tool's purpose. It might lack detail about what the settings include, but given the simplicity, it is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The schema is empty and covered fully; the baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional info is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('pretty printer settings'), clearly indicating a read operation. It distinguishes from the sibling 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' by being the retrieval counterpart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reading current settings but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' or 'prettyPrinter'. No exclusions or specific contexts are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-adt-extension MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rohitvardhanbattula/mcp-adt-extension/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rohitvardhanbattula/mcp-adt-extension)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-adt-extension MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rohitvardhanbattula/mcp-adt-extension/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rohitvardhanbattula/mcp-adt-extension)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rohitvardhanbattula/mcp-adt-extension'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server