run_tests

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description is consistent with that, adding real behavioral detail: the run is transpiled and executed on Node.js, no SAP backend is contacted, and `install` triggers a dependency reinstall. It does not mention expected runtime, failure reporting, or how test results surface, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact two-line Args block; every line contributes information. Slightly verbose on the toolchain parenthetical, 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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool does, where it runs, its side effects, and both parameters. The only missing element is routing guidance relative to the sibling check tools, which is a minor gap.

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 0% (only bare titles 'Path' and 'Install'), so the description carries the burden and does so: it explains that path must be a project folder containing package.json, and that install reinstalls npm dependencies before testing. This meaningfully upgrades both parameters past the schema's titles.

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+resource ('Run the ABAP Unit tests') and adds the execution environment (Node.js via abaplint transpiler + open-abap, invoked with `npm test`), which makes it clearly distinct in kind from lint/check_conventions even though no sibling is named.

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 by the name and by the note that no SAP system is needed, which helps an agent decide it can call this in a bare environment. However, it never states when to prefer this over the sibling tools (lint, check_conventions) or any prerequisites beyond a package.json.

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