ABAP Debug Step

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint true and readOnlyHint false. The description adds minimal context beyond 'continue or step', which aligns with the destructive nature. It does not detail side effects, permissions, or the format of the returned stack.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and return. However, it could be longer to add value without being verbose.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description omits parameter explanations, return value specifics, and usage context (e.g., required preconditions). It is insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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 the description provides no explanation for any of the 4 parameters (stepType, threadId, targetLine, connectionId). The description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Continue or step an attached ABAP debuggee') and the output ('return the new raw stack'). The verb 'step' and resource 'ABAP debuggee' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like abap_debug_breakpoint or abap_debug_session.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like abap_debug_step vs abap_debug_continue. Prerequisites (e.g., active debug session) are not mentioned.

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