RunATC

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the side effect (a worklist is created), what every return path yields (worklist_id always, run_id with wait=false, finding counts with wait=true), and the operational constraint that it runs outside batch mode. That is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a stateful run.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and no filler; four sentences all carry information. The clause 'the run's findings are read by it, for either value of wait' is awkwardly phrased and slightly slows comprehension, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain returns and safety on its own — it does both, including the 'runs outside batch mode' caveat. The only loose thread is the '[read-only]' tag sitting next to a tool that creates a worklist, which could momentarily puzzle an agent about side effects.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by mapping parameter values to outcomes (wait=false yields run_id to poll, wait=true holds and yields counts) and by tying worklist_id to both modes. It does not add detail on max_findings or object-type semantics, which remain schema-only.

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?

Names a specific verb (runs) and resource (ABAP Test Cockpit checks), plus the two scoping inputs (check_variant, objects). It distinguishes the grouped ATC check from the per-object Check* siblings implicitly but never names one explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied through the wait semantics ('poll the run_id' vs 'hold until checks finish and answer counts'), which helps an agent choose a calling mode. However, there is no statement of when this tool should be used instead of CheckClass/CheckPackage/etc., and no prerequisite guidance (e.g., that a check variant must already exist).

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