List ABAP Debugger Breakpoints

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: the list is client-side, SAP's own endpoint returns an empty body, Eclipse behaves the same way, and restart clears the server's local knowledge. It also explains the returned structure and gives a concrete cross-check method, providing rich behavioral 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and the critical 'IMPORTANT' caveat, then gives a compact return schema and a concrete example. Every paragraph earns its place, including the HTTP endpoint detail that supports the client-side claim. The structure is well organized and not redundant.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully documents the return shape, field meanings, the special 'id' field used by sap_delete_breakpoints, and the limitation regarding restart and Eclipse-set breakpoints. For a read-only list tool with this complexity, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly or interpret its output is missing.

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%, with the single optional response_format parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description adds an example of calling with no arguments and shows the JSON return shape, but it does not need to further explain the parameter semantics because the schema already fully covers them. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('external (ADT) breakpoints set through this MCP server'), which distinguishes it from related tools like sap_set_breakpoint and sap_delete_breakpoints. It also clarifies the scope as client-side and server-local, leaving no ambiguity about what is being listed.

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 is explicit about when this tool is appropriate: it lists only breakpoints set by this server since startup, not Eclipse breakpoints or pre-restart breakpoints. It even gives an alternative approach (sap_sql_query on ABDBG_EXTDBPS) for cross-checking the server side, making the usage boundaries very clear.

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