GetUnitTest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation (retrieve) but does not elaborate on idempotency, authentication, or any potential side effects. For a simple retrieval, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a single sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is essential and there is no redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity and the lack of output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and input. However, it does not describe the return format, which might require the agent to infer or rely on other documentation. Still, for a retrieval tool with one parameter, it is nearly complete.

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?

The only parameter 'run_id' is described in the schema as 'Run identifier returned by RunUnitTest.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'ABAP Unit test run status and result', and the key input 'run_id'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like GetUnitTestStatus and GetUnitTestResult by combining both status and result.

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 implies use after a previous 'RunUnitTest' call by specifying 'previously started run_id'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives like GetUnitTestStatus or GetUnitTestResult, which could be relevant for more granular queries.

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