abap_atc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that a call returns a refusal and sends nothing to the SAP system — but the surrounding ABAP_ALLOW_WRITE/ABAP_MODE text is internally contradictory, which undermines rather than clarifies behavior.

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?

Only the first sentence is front-loaded and useful; the remaining three are garbled, repetitive, and self-contradictory about whether the tool is locked and whether a write flag matters. This is padding that actively confuses rather than earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description's one job is to make the operational state clear, and it partly does (it will refuse, nothing reaches SAP). But the contradictory ABAP_ALLOW_WRITE instructions leave an agent unable to tell whether the tool is permanently disabled or can be enabled, which is exactly the ambiguity that should have been resolved.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters (100% schema coverage), so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The ABAP_ALLOW_* names it mentions are server-side environment variables, not input parameters, so they add no parameter semantics either way.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Run ABAP Test Cockpit static analysis on an object,' which is unambiguous on its own. However, it offers no differentiation from the many abap_* siblings (abap_test, abap_run, abap_quick_fix), and the sentences that follow muddy rather than sharpen the purpose.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus abap_test, abap_run, or abap_quick_fix, nor any prerequisite for a normal invocation. The only usage-adjacent text concerns ABAP_ALLOW_WRITE/ABAP_ALLOW_PACKAGES environment variables, and it is self-negating ('does not enable writes' followed by 'Set ABAP_ALLOW_WRITE=true'), leaving the agent unsure whether the tool can be used at all.

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