RunFunctionModuleUnitTest

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. 'Run the ABAP Unit tests' implies execution, but the description says nothing about side effects, whether the object must be active, runtime cost, or what 'the result' actually contains — a notable gap for a test-execution 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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and zero waste. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the context noted elsewhere rather than through disciplined editing of richer content.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what 'the result' looks like (pass/fail, messages, counts) but does not. It also omits prerequisites and any notion of scope relative to the function-group and class test runners, leaving the agent to guess.

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% and the detail enum is fully documented with its three modes, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about either parameter; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Run') plus specific resource ('ABAP Unit tests of a function module'), and it states what it returns. It is distinguishable from RunUnitTest, RunCdsUnitTest, and RunFunctionGroupUnitTest by scope, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. tests exist via CreateFunctionGroupUnitTest, object activated), and no pointer to alternatives or to GetUnitTestResult for retrieving results. Only the implied usage from the tool name is available.

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