sap_run_program

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that output and variant behavior depend on the installed backend, that the connector has no timeout/background-job fallback, and that execution scope should be agreed beforehand, hinting at possible side effects. It does not mention the return format or auth requirements, but the backend-dependent statement covers much of the uncertainty.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains backend-dependent behavior, and the third warns about implementation limitations and pre-use agreement. Every sentence earns its place and important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the most critical context: what the tool executes, the required input, backend-dependent behavior, and important timeout/fallback limitations. It lacks an explicit pointer to sibling execution tools and does not describe the output structure, but the backend-dependent caveat plus fully described schema make it sufficiently complete for an agent to act reasonably.

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 three parameters. The description adds little beyond restating that the report is required and that variant selection depends on the backend. This is a baseline 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting and the description provides marginal extra meaning.

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 verb and resource: 'Request execution of an ABAP report through the configured /run_program endpoint.' It also adds the key constraints that the report name is required and that variant selection depends on the backend. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like sap_run_transaction, but the ABAP-report scope is specific enough to avoid major confusion.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool over alternatives such as sap_run_transaction. However, the description implies suitability constraints: it warns that the public Node connector lacks a 180-second timeout, background-job fallback, and polling workflow, which suggests it is not appropriate for long-running or asynchronous report execution. The instruction to 'Agree the report and execution scope before use' provides a precondition but no explicit alternative.

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