runClass

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by stating this EXECUTES code as the connected user, counts as a writing tool, and is refused in read-only mode. It also discloses error behavior (bare 500, with details in ST22), which is valuable context beyond the structured annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it states the purpose, gives the F9 analogy, routes to the alternative, discloses side effects, and covers error handling. It is front-loaded and well-structured.

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 tool that executes arbitrary code, this description covers the key contextual needs: prerequisites, side effects, read-only behavior, error handling, and the return value (console output). The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the return type is described as console output, and there is no hidden complexity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden for the single className parameter. It clarifies that the class must exist and implement IF_OO_ADT_CLASSRUN, which adds meaningful constraint information. The parameter itself is fairly self-explanatory from the tool description, so a high score is appropriate.

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: execute a class implementing IF_OO_ADT_CLASSRUN, analogous to the F9 action in an ADT editor, and return console output. It also distinguishes itself from runSnippet, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 explicitly says when not to use this tool: for ABAP that does not implement the interface, use runSnippet, which wraps it. It also states prerequisites (class must exist and implement the interface), giving clear guidance for selecting the correct tool.

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