GetUnitTest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must handle behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation (Retrieve) but does not mention any side effects, authorization needs, or potential limitations. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 14 words, front-loading the verb and object. No unnecessary words or information, making it highly efficient.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and input. It could mention that it returns both status and result in one call, but for a simple retrieval tool, it is sufficiently 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 single parameter 'run_id' is described in the schema as 'Run identifier returned by RunUnitTest', which adds helpful context beyond the schema's property description. This clarifies the parameter's origin and usage.

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 context 'for a previously started run_id'. It 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 the tool is for a previously started run_id, but does not explicitly say when to use this combined tool versus the separate GetUnitTestStatus or GetUnitTestResult. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage guidance is minimal.

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