fang_mutation_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that it is cheaper and returns only score and counts, but it does not describe that mutation testing is computationally expensive or that parameters like jobs, sample, and timeout affect runtime and resource use. It provides some behavioral context but leaves significant operational traits unexplained.

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 tight sentences with no waste. The core purpose and the cost trade-off are front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description appropriately states what is returned ('mutation score and counts'). However, for a six-parameter mutation-testing tool with no annotations, it lacks enough detail about execution cost, parameter effects, and prerequisites to be fully self-sufficient.

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 only 33%, and the description only implicitly maps to the 'all' and 'diff' parameters via 'a diff or the whole project.' It says nothing about jobs, root, sample, or timeout, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Return only the mutation score and counts') and scope ('a diff or the whole project'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling fang_check_diff by explaining it is the cheaper, number-only variant, so an agent can choose correctly without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a clear selection rule: use this when you 'just need the number' and want something cheaper than fang_check_diff. It lacks explicit when-not guidance, such as what to do when you need detailed survivor information (fang_list_survivors), but the named alternative makes the main trade-off clear.

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