Retrieve the line markers that indicate which code lines were touched by a unit test run, helping you identify covered sections in ABAP objects.
The markers ADT draws next to code covered by a unit test - which lines a run touched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL of the object. | |
| source | Yes | The source code. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context: markers correspond to lines touched by a test run. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not disclose any further operational details such as dependence on prior test execution or output format.
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, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core concept and communicates the essential idea immediately.
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 simple read-only lookup with two fully described parameters and annotations covering side effects, the description conveys the expected result concept: markers for lines covered by a unit test. With no output schema, the exact marker format is not specified, but the definition is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.
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 100%, with both 'url' and 'source' already documented. The description adds no real parameter-level meaning beyond linking 'source' to the code being marked. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
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 explains that the tool provides the markers ADT shows next to code covered by a unit test, specifically the lines a run touched. This conveys the resource and distinguishes it from sibling test execution/evaluation tools, though it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'retrieve' or 'return.'
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like unitTestRun, runTests, or unitTestEvaluation. It does not state whether a test must already have run, whether this reads stored results, or how to choose between this and similar coverage-related tools. The usage context is only implied by the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.