atcCheckVariant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a token string (worklistId) and opens a worklist, but does not mention potential side effects, authorization needs, or behavior beyond the return type.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's role and return value. Every sentence adds critical information without any 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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately covers the purpose, return value, and next steps. It lacks error handling details, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds extra context: variant is the NAME used in SAP GUI, and connection overrides the active connection with immunity to restarts and concurrent switches, complementing the schema.

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 tool's purpose: opening an ATC worklist for a given check variant and returning a worklistId token. It explicitly labels it as 'STEP 1 of an ATC run', distinguishing it from sibling tools like createAtcRun which consume the result.

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 provides clear guidance on how to use the tool: feed the returned worklistId into createAtcRun and use the same check variant as the SAP GUI or the system default. However, it does not specify when not to use it or list alternative approaches, so it is not a perfect 5.

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