runAtcCheck

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses the tool runs a full transient flow and returns compact findings, noting potential differences from SAP GUI baseline. Missing details on authorization or error conditions, but adequate for a one-shot check.

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 plus a concise note, front-loaded with key action and benefit. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

No output schema, so description could detail return format more. However, it covers the main contextual points: transient nature, when to use, and key differentiators. Parameter coverage is complete via schema.

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%, so schema already describes all 7 parameters. Description adds no additional parameter-level guidance beyond what's in the schema (e.g., how to get mainUrl is already in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb ('run'), resource ('ATC check for one object/package'), and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternative tools (atcCheckVariant, createAtcRun, atcWorklists) and explaining the advantage.

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?

Explicitly advises to prefer this tool over the separate steps and notes that it is a transient run with system default treatment, providing clear context on when to use and potential differences from baseline worklists.

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