ABAP Debug Variable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description adds little beyond confirming the read/evaluate behavior. It does not detail side effects, response format, or limitations, but annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states the action, second provides a crucial prerequisite. No wasted words, all information is front-loaded and essential.

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 tool with 13 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too brief. It lacks details on return values, pagination (rowStart/rowCount), expression syntax, and filtering behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 13 parameters (e.g., filter, expression, rowCount). The schema provides no descriptions either, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for 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 tool reads variables or evaluates ABAP expressions in a selected stack frame, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like abap_debug_stack by explicitly mentioning the prerequisite, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call abap_debug_stack first to obtain frameId, providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool vs alternatives like abap_debug_step, missing some exclusion context.

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