Get ABAP Debugger State

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description explains state semantics (LISTENING, STOPPED, RUNNING, TIMEOUT, etc.) and discloses the key behavioral detail that only a STOPPED debuggee triggers an SAP call, otherwise the response is served locally. This materially helps an agent anticipate tool behavior.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and structured clearly: purpose, args, return shape, states, and server-behavior note. Every sentence adds necessary information without fluff.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by fully specifying the JSON return shape, the required session context, and the meaning of every possible state. An agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly for state inspection and interpret the 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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters already documented in the input schema, including the session_id provenance and response_format enum/default. The description only repeats the parameter names and adds no additional meaning, so it holds at the baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Report the state of a debug session, plus a fresh call stack when a debuggee is stopped.' This distinguishes it from sibling debug tools like sap_debug_step or sap_debug_wait by focusing on observation rather than manipulation.

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 gives useful context like 'Only STOPPED calls SAP; the other states are answered from this server,' which helps an agent understand the cost/behavior of the call. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as sap_debug_wait or sap_debug_step, so the selection guidance is more implied than explicit.

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