DebugStep

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior for the exit paths (detach keeps the listener and breakpoints, release_debugger frees the debugger), but the [read-only] tag is misleading for an operation that resumes and mutates a debug session, and nothing is said about state_handle validity after detach/release or about error behavior if the debuggee is not stopped.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the core action and then the exit paths, with no filler. It is slightly overloaded by joining stepping and session-ending semantics in a single clause chain, but every clause carries information.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should at least hint at what a step returns (stack position, source line) and what happens to state_handle after detach/release. It covers the action semantics well but leaves those gaps for a stateful debugger operation.

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%: the action enum already spells out into/over/return/continue/detach/release_debugger and their ABAP-only restriction, and detail explains the terse/full/raw output levels. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete verb (move the stopped debuggee) and enumerates the exact semantics of each mode: into a call, over it, out of it, on to the next stop, detach, release. That cleanly separates it from DebugStepToLine, DebugWait and DebugTerminate, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Runs outside batch mode" gives one explicit scope exclusion, and the detach/release options imply the alternative to DebugTerminate. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus DebugStepToLine or how it pairs with DebugWait/DebugGetStack after stepping.

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