Run ABAP Unit Tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it runs all test classes (FOR TESTING), returns total=0 when no tests exist, requires S_DEVELOP authorization, and provides the exact JSON return structure. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, a short context paragraph, then compact Args/Returns/Examples/Notes sections. Each section earns its place and there is no fluff or tautological repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides the full JSON return structure, covers the required parameters, notes the conditional function_group parameter, clarifies response_format behavior, states authorization requirements, and handles the no-test-classes edge case. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some value by giving concrete examples ('Run tests for ZCL_FOO' -> object_type='class', object_name='ZCL_FOO') and noting the function_group conditional requirement, but it does not substantially augment what the schema already provides.

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 starts with a specific action and resource: 'Execute ABAP Unit tests for an object and return pass/fail results per test method.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from static checks like sap_syntax_check or sap_atc_run because it is explicitly about running ABAP Unit tests and reporting test outcomes per method.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Useful for verifying changes before activating or releasing' and includes a natural-language example ('Did my last edit break anything?'). It also notes the key prerequisite that the object must have test classes. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the use context is strongly implied and sufficient.

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