RunUnitTest

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose side effects (e.g., creating a test run entry), asynchronous behavior (the run likely continues after the call), or required permissions. It only mentions the return of a run_id, which hints at further queries but lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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 two short sentences, each providing essential information (action and output). No redundant words; the most critical details are front-loaded.

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 complexity (nested parameters, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools for status/result queries, the description should mention that the run is asynchronous and that agents must poll GetUnitTestStatus/GetUnitTestResult. This gap reduces its completeness.

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 input schema already includes descriptions for parameters (e.g., 'List of container/test class pairs to execute.'), achieving 50% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for undocumented fields like the boolean flags inside nested objects.

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 action ('Start an ABAP Unit test run') and the output ('Returns run_id for status/result queries'). It distinguishes itself from siblings that create or retrieve tests/results (e.g., CreateUnitTest, GetUnitTestResult).

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 that the returned run_id should be used with other tools for status/results, but it does not explicitly direct the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites (e.g., test class must exist). Guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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