GetCdsUnitTest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It states the tool retrieves status and result, but does not disclose if it is read-only, any authorization requirements, or potential side effects. The behavior is minimally described.

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, front-loaded sentence that precisely conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous words.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but vague about what exactly is returned (status and result combined or separately). For a retrieval tool, it could specify the response format or structure.

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 one parameter (run_id) already described as 'Run identifier returned by unit test run.' The description adds 'previously started', which reinforces usage but does not significantly expand meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'CDS unit test run status and result', and the specific condition 'for a previously started run_id'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like GetCdsUnitTestResult and GetCdsUnitTestStatus which only retrieve one aspect.

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 is tied to a previously started run_id, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetCdsUnitTestStatus or GetCdsUnitTestResult. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite context is given.

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