sap_run_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does it well. It discloses the TSTC resolution mechanism, extended timeout with background-job fallback, list output, and the important limitation that only report transactions are supported. It does not detail error behavior or side effects of running arbitrary reports, but it provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 reasonably sized and front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by mechanism, parameters, and the limitation. The parameter explanations are slightly redundant with the schema, but they are concise and the limitation is clearly separated, so no sentence is wasted.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key operational context: what it runs, how it resolves the transaction, the fallback behavior, the variant prerequisite, and the limitation on transaction types. It is complete enough for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it, though exact output structure is not specified.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema. It clarifies that tcode is required, explains that variant is a selection-screen variant for programs with mandatory fields, and links variant creation to sap_save_variant. max_output_lines is not repeated in the description, but the schema already covers it adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run the ABAP report behind a report transaction code... and return its list output.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sap_run_program by explaining that it resolves the transaction to its program via TSTC and then runs it like sap_run_program.

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 gives clear context: report transactions can be run headlessly, pure dialog transactions are not supported, and variants should be created with sap_save_variant for mandatory fields. It does not explicitly state 'use sap_run_program instead when you already have a program name,' but the relationship to sap_run_program and the limitation on transaction types provide strong usage direction.

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