Lists ABAP profiler trace files available in ADT runtime, returning structured details like ID, user, object, state, and expiry to help locate and manage traces.
[runtime] List ABAP profiler trace files available in ADT runtime. Returns structured entries with id, recordedAt, user, objectName, state, expiresAt, and sizing/timing fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden but only partially: it discloses return fields (id, recordedAt, user, objectName, state, expiresAt, sizing/timing). It implies a safe read via 'List' but says nothing about auth requirements, whether traces are user-scoped, or result size/ordering.
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?
Two sentences, action front-loaded, and the field enumeration in the second sentence each earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, which it does by naming the entry fields. For a parameterless, read-only list tool this is close to complete, missing only scoping/pagination or follow-up-tool guidance.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface to clarify, and the description correctly avoids inventing argument semantics.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (ABAP profiler trace files in ADT runtime), which is clear and distinct in intent from neighbors like RuntimeGetProfilerTraceData and RuntimeAnalyzeProfilerTrace. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is inferrable rather than spelled out.
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 implies the tool is used to enumerate available traces, but it offers no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative (e.g., that getting/analyzing a specific trace goes through RuntimeGetProfilerTraceData). Usage must be inferred from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.