Run ABAP Unit Tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds little beyond restating the action and scope; it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as how results are returned or potential side effects on the system.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 an output schema and strong annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., system availability) and the meaning of detailLevel. It does not explain the purpose of running unit tests or what 'one exact repository object' implies for systemId/objectName usage, leaving the agent to infer from schema names.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly relates to objectName with 'one exact repository object' but leaves systemId and detailLevel completely unexplained. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already conveys through parameter names.

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 ('Run') and the resource ('ABAP Unit') with a specific scope ('one exact repository object'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sap.quality.atc.run (which runs ATC checks) by focusing on unit tests for a single object.

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 phrase 'for one exact repository object' implies a targeting restriction, suggesting it is not for batch or multi-object runs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over related quality tools.

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