RunUnitTest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. However, it only states that the tool starts a test run and returns a run_id. It does not mention important aspects such as whether the run is asynchronous, whether it compiles test classes, what side effects may occur (e.g., database changes from test fixtures), required authorizations, or error handling. For a test execution tool, this is a significant omission.

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 12 words, which is concise and front-loaded with the action ('Start an ABAP Unit test run'). Every word serves a purpose. However, it is on the borderline of under-specification: while concise, it omits necessary details, so it cannot earn a 5.

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 complexity of the tool (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to structure the 'tests' array, what the scope options mean, how duration and risk_level affect execution, or how to handle potential errors. The agent needs to infer a lot from the parameter names and schema alone. A complete description would include typical usage patterns and relationship with result querying tools.

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%, meaning several parameters lack descriptions. The description only refers to 'provided class test definitions,' which corresponds to the 'tests' parameter but does not elaborate on other parameters like scope, duration, risk_level, context, or title. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema; for example, it does not explain how to use the optional scope or risk_level filters. A more informative description would compensate for the low coverage.

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') and the resource ('for provided class test definitions'), and specifies the return value ('Returns run_id for status/result queries'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like GetUnitTestResult and GetUnitTestStatus, which query results, and CreateUnitTest, which creates test definitions. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 that after starting a test run, the agent should use the returned run_id to query status/result with other tools, but it does not explicitly say 'Use this to initiate a test run, then use GetUnitTestStatus or GetUnitTestResult to monitor/results.' There is no guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, such as CreateCdsUnitTest for CDS-specific tests. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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