abap_debug_value

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, lowering the bar for behavioral disclosure. The description adds the row-window behavior for tables and the single-path scope, but does not disclose output shape or how unknown/open-world results are rendered; no contradiction with annotations.

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?

One front-loaded sentence. 'Tier-2 drill-in' immediately orients the agent, and the row-window clause earns its place as a distinguishing behavior.

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 read-only drill-in with fully documented parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is an explicit link to sibling tools and the exact usage moment, but schema descriptions for stateId and path cover invocation mechanics, and no output schema is needed for a render-style result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only gestures at table row windowing (reinforcing from/count) without adding semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('render') and a clear object ('one variable path in detail'), and 'Tier-2 drill-in' signals this is the focused follow-up to broader debug tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the scope is 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?

'Tier-2 drill-in' implies the agent should first obtain a stateId/variable list from a tier-1 tool (likely abap_debug_vars), but it never explicitly states when to choose this over abap_debug or abap_debug_vars, and gives no exclusion criteria.

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