Run ABAP Application

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context about a read-only action (repl_health) and destructive actions (execute). However, it does not explain side effects, permissions, or the confirmation requirement. The added value is modest.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It is not structured with front-loaded key information, and the sentence tries to combine two different actions awkwardly.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and destructive behavior), the description is severely incomplete. It omits details about return values, parameter usage, prerequisites, and execution flow. The agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without additional information.

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?

Input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description fails to explain any parameter (e.g., code, planId, className). It mentions 'class/snippet plan' but does not map to parameters. Schema coverage is zero, so the description must compensate but does not.

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 mentions checking an ABAP FS REPL and previewing/executing a class/snippet plan, giving a general sense of the tool's purpose. However, it uses jargon ('FS REPL', 'plan') and does not clearly state the verb+resource pattern, making it somewhat vague. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like run_unit_tests or run_atc_analysis.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts. Sibling tools exist for debugging, testing, and analysis, but no comparison is offered.

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