Inspect ABAP Debug Session

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'stateful ADT debug client', which implies the tool depends on an active debug session, but it does not elaborate on behavior like error handling or prerequisites. This adds some value but not rich context.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values don't need to be described, but the tool has 3 parameters with no descriptions and no context about when it should be used or what constitutes a valid session. The description is minimal and leaves the agent without enough information to confidently invoke the tool correctly, especially given the large sibling set.

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 mention any of the three parameters (systemId, debugUser, terminalMode). Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but terminalMode is ambiguous and the description provides no additional meaning. For a tool with low schema coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and identifies the resource 'ABAP Debug Session', clearly stating the tool's function. It also mentions 'stateful ADT debug client' which adds context. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling debug inspection tools like sap.debug.status or sap.debug.stack, 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.

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 over alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or compare with other debug tools. Sibling tools like sap.debug.status, sap.debug.stack, and sap.debug.variables exist but no clear context for selection is provided.

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