GetUnitTestStatus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Retrieve' without specifying that it's read-only, what happens on invalid run_id, or any side effects. Long polling is mentioned but not explained.

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?

Single sentence with no extraneous words. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description does not clarify what the returned status looks like or any error conditions. For a simple retrieval, it is minimally sufficient but lacks detail compared to sibling tools that may have richer descriptions.

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 baseline 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it just restates the run_id parameter. The with_long_polling parameter is adequately described in the schema, and the description doesn't add new information.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'ABAP Unit test run status', specifying the key input 'run_id'. This distinguishes it from siblings like GetCdsUnitTestStatus (CDS-specific) and GetUnitTestResult (returns results, not 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when to use long polling or how this differs from GetCdsUnitTestStatus. Usage context is entirely implied.

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