RunATC

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return categories (errors, warnings, info with locations and check IDs), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions/authorization needed, whether the operation is read-only vs. side-effecting (ATC runs can be expensive/long), runtime duration, or result truncation behavior tied to max_findings.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, zero filler. Every clause 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?

Adequate minimum viable coverage: it names the tool's purpose and return categories, and the schema covers all params. But with no annotations and no output schema, an agent lacks the behavioral guardrails (side-effect profile, cost, truncation semantics) that would make this fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (object_name, object_type enum, max_findings, check_variant, with_exemptions). Baseline is 3; the description adds the return-shape context (findings with locations/check IDs) but no per-parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a 4 is generous-but-justified for the coupling of findings meaning to the ATC result.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Run ATC ... static code analysis on an ABAP object') and names the domain acronym expansion. Clearly distinct from read-only sibling tools like GetClass or CheckSyntax.

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?

Usage is implied by the action (analyze an object for quality issues), and the check_variant param cross-references ListATCCheckVariants. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. the closest sibling CheckSyntax, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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