RunCdsUnitTest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden itself: it declares '[read-only]' and notes it 'runs outside batch mode,' which is useful non-obvious context. However, for a tool that actually executes tests, it does not say whether results are persisted, whether it requires an active session, or how long a run may take.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the batch-mode caveat appended. No filler.

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 should carry more of the behavioral and return-value picture; 'returns the result' does not indicate what a caller gets back or how failures surface. Adequate for a two-parameter tool but with clear gaps.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description only echoes class_name's meaning. The 'detail' enum (terse/full/raw) is untouched in the prose, so 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?

States a specific verb (runs) and resource (ABAP Unit tests of the CDS view test class), and the phrase 'CDS view test class' implicitly separates it from RunUnitTest, RunProgramUnitTest, and RunFunctionGroupUnitTest. It does not name those siblings outright, so it stops short of a 5.

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 context (CDS view unit tests) but offers no explicit when-to-use, no mention of pairing with GetCdsUnitTestResult, and no exclusions versus the other Run*UnitTest siblings. Usage is only implied.

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