Read ABAP Debug Variables

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the scope 'from one attached debug stack frame', which clarifies the operation's target. However, it does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination, filtering, or expansion options that the schema parameters imply, nor any performance or authorization considerations.

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, grammatically simple sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, its extreme brevity limits its informativeness; while structurally clean, it lacks the detail needed for a tool with this many parameters.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, many sibling debug tools) and the existence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover filtering, expansion, pagination, or use cases, and it relies entirely on the schema for parameter names without explaining behavior. The output schema clarifies return values, but the description's minimalism leaves significant gaps in operational understanding.

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 nothing to explain the 11 parameters. It only says 'read variables' without describing what parameters like filter, rowCount, expandTables, or scopeName do. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and relationship of the parameters.

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 ('Read') and the resource ('variables from one attached debug stack frame'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sap.debug.stack (which lists frames) and sap.debug.evaluate (which evaluates expressions). It is specific and unambiguous about the tool's core purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. A user/agent is left to infer that this reads variables from a debug stack frame, but there is no context about typical use cases or when to prefer it over other debug tools like sap.debug.evaluate.

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