abap_run

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

The lock details ('ABAP_ALLOW_WRITE does not enable writes, ABAP_MODE decides it', 'calling it returns a refusal and sends nothing to the SAP system') add genuine context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations. However, it's odd that a run tool is readOnly while describing write-enabling variables, creating some conceptual friction though not a direct contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, three of which are about a server-side lock rather than the tool. The most important fact (it executes ABAP) is front-loaded but then the lock details dominate, and the 'so that variable is what decides it' phrasing is confusing and referent-ambiguous.

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-param, no-output-schema tool, the core purpose and lock behavior are covered. But the description gives no info on output format, error behavior when unlocked, or how the agent should actually proceed given the lock – leaving a practical gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description correctly notes there are no inputs to configure, though it names environment variables that aren't schema parameters.

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?

It states a specific action ('execute an IF_OO_ADT_CLASSRUN class or report and capture its output'), which is clearer than a bare name. But the sentence is immediately buried under lock/refusal text, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like abap_write or abap_read.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternative routing; the only condition given ('set ABAP_ALLOW_WRITE=true') is a lock that the tool itself refuses. The agent is told it will be refused but not how to actually run ABAP through this server.

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