abap_debug_vars

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that complex values are returned only as stubs, which is critical for an agent to know before invoking the tool.

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?

A single sentence conveys the purpose, timing, and an important output characteristic with no filler. The key behavioral fact is front-loaded.

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 survey tool, the description covers input context via the schema, and the return behavior via the stub note. Without an output schema, it could also explain what primitive values look like or how to dereference stubs, but the sibling name abap_debug_value plus the stub statement gives enough direction for correct invocation.

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 schema fully documents stateId, scope, and filter. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the structured schema already carries that burden.

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 ('survey') and resource ('every variable in scope at a debugger stop'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling abap_debug_value, which is meant for individual value inspection. The mention of complex values returning as abap_debug_value stubs further disambiguates its role.

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 clearly scopes usage to a debugger stop, which is the essential precondition. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use abap_debug_value instead for inspecting a single value,' though that alternative is strongly implied by the stub behavior.

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