CreateUnitTest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It mentions that the tool starts a test run and returns a run_id for later queries, implying asynchronous behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether test execution modifies state), required permissions, or behavior on errors. More context would improve transparency.

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 a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose and return behavior. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with moderate complexity.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the optional parameters (scope, duration, risk_level) nor the structure of the return value beyond 'run_id'. While the core purpose is clear, the description lacks detail for full correct usage.

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 50% (only 'tests', 'test_class', 'container_class' have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter details beyond 'provided class test definitions'. It does not explain scope, duration, risk_level, title, or context parameters. With medium coverage, the description provides baseline value but does not compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 the action ('Start an ABAP Unit test run'), the resource ('provided class test definitions'), and the return value ('Returns run_id for status/result queries'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like RunUnitTest (which might execute immediately) and GetUnitTest (which retrieves existing tests).

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 usage for starting a test run for specific test definitions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose CreateUnitTest over alternatives like RunUnitTest or GetUnitTest. There is no discussion of prerequisites, exclusions, or context-dependent choices.

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