RunProgramUnitTest

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full load and delivers substantive behavior: the '[read-only]' marker, the bounded async wait that can return a run_id instead of a result, how that run_id is later read, and that a recordable batch call returns empty content keyed to the next number. It omits prerequisites (does the program need tests created first?) and error behavior for a nonexistent program.

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 core action and the async default are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information about runner choice or batch behavior. The final sentence ('When runner is sync, recordable: ...') is compressed to the point of being hard to parse on first read.

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?

For a tool with four parameters, a nested scope object, two enums, and no output schema, the description covers the action, runner trade-off, and batch peculiarity well. The one real gap is return shape: it says 'returns the result' and mentions run_id but never characterizes what a result or run status contains, leaving the agent dependent on sibling status/result tools it was not told about.

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 schema already explains program_name, runner, detail, and the nested scope defaults in comparable detail. The description largely restates the runner semantics and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema; the batch/'recordable' note is behavioral rather than a parameter clarification.

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 and resource: runs ABAP Unit tests of the report named by program_name and returns the result. The program/report scoping implicitly distinguishes it from the class-, CDS-, and function-group-level run siblings, but it never names those alternatives, so the agent must infer the boundary from the parameter name alone.

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?

Gives real selection guidance between the two runners: async with a bounded wait is 'suited to long suites', sync returns the finished result in one request. It also explains when a batch-mode call is recordable and how to retrieve its answer. It does not mention sibling tools such as RunUnitTest or GetUnitTestResult, so cross-tool routing is left implicit.

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