Read the local test classes include of an ABAP class, active or inactive, to inspect unit tests before activation.
Read the local test classes include of a class. Active or inactive version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | Version to read: "active" (default) for deployed version, "inactive" for modified but not activated version. | active |
| class_name | Yes | Parent class name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v16.0.0Input schema / properties / class_name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Parent class name (e.g., ZCL_MY_CLASS)."New value: +"Parent class name."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'Read ... Active or inactive version.' It does not confirm the operation is read-only, mention required authorization, or describe the returned content shape for a read tool with no output schema.
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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded in the first sentence. Slight awkwardness in 'the local test classes include of a class' costs it the top mark.
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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a local test class include is and what the read returns. It leaves both implicit, relying entirely on the schema for the only two parameters.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'Active or inactive version' merely echoes the version enum and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (Read) and resource (the local test classes include of a class), and the name plus description together identify exactly what is fetched. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like GetLocalTypes, GetLocalDefinitions, or GetLocalMacros, which fetch other local include kinds.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to prefer this over GetClass, GetClassVersions, or the other local-include getters. The only usage signal is the 'active or inactive version' phrase, which is really a parameter restatement rather than routing advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.