ABAP Debug Status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description supplements this by naming the specific pieces of state returned (listener, attachment, breakpoints). No contradictions or omissions for a simple 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and result. No extraneous text, perfectly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only status tool with rich annotations, the description adequately explains what is returned. However, it could note that no output schema exists, but that is not required. Minor gap in not describing possible error states.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no param descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any meaning to the 'connectionId' parameter beyond its name and type, leaving the agent to infer its purpose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool returns listener, debuggee attachment, and breakpoint state for a connection, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like abap_debug_breakpoint (which sets breakpoints) and abap_debug_session (which manages sessions).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving debug status, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor provide when-not-to-use conditions. The sibling tool list gives context but the description lacks direct guidance.

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