GetUnitTest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Retrieve', indicating a read-only operation, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. The tool is simple and non-destructive, so the description is adequate but not rich.

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 of 13 words, with no wasted phrases. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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?

For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete by noting that it returns both status and result details. Sibling tools exist (GetUnitTestResult, GetUnitTestStatus), so the combination is clear.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the run_id context. No additional constraints or formatting hints are provided.

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' and the resource 'ABAP Unit test run status and result', and specifies it is for a previously started run_id. This distinguishes it from siblings like RunUnitTest (which starts tests) and GetUnitTestResult/GetUnitTestStatus (which retrieve only result or status).

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 use after RunUnitTest ('previously started run_id') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like GetUnitTestResult or GetUnitTestStatus. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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