Run ATC Check

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses a non-obvious server-side side effect: each run records an ATC worklist that is harmless and reused per check variant. It also warns that large objects can exceed SAP_TIMEOUT_MS and recommends checking one object at a time, which is valuable behavioral context not available from 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 front-loaded with the purpose, then organized into input options, return format, examples, and notes. It is long but justified by seven parameters and no output schema; however, a few 'Args' lines repeat schema information, preventing a perfect conciseness score.

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?

With no output schema present, the description fully documents the JSON return shape, priority semantics, worklist side effect, timeout behavior, response_format options, and example parameter mappings. An agent has everything needed to select inputs and interpret results correctly.

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. The description adds helpful examples and the either/or grouping of object_uri vs object_type+object_name, but it largely restates the schema's existing parameter descriptions, defaults, and preconditions rather than contributing substantial new parameter-level 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run an ATC (ABAP Test Cockpit) check on an ABAP object and return the findings...' and ties it to the workflow trigger 'before releasing a transport.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sap_syntax_check, sap_run_unit_tests, and sap_release_transport.

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?

It gives explicit context for when to use the tool: before releasing a transport, and it explains the two input modes (object_uri vs object_type + object_name) with examples. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or point to a specific alternative tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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