run_mutation_tests_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that if 'tool' is not specified, auto-detection occurs based on project structure, and that it returns summarized statistics. However, it omits important behavioral traits such as potential side effects, execution time, or what happens to the report path.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds value: purpose, supported frameworks, and auto-detection behavior. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 tool has 7 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the required parameters (command, workingDirectory, etc.), the configuration of mutation tests, or the format of the returned statistics. A more detailed description is necessary for an agent to use it effectively.

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%, so the description should explain parameter meanings. It only adds context for 'tool' (framework support and auto-detection), leaving projectId, commitSha, command, workingDirectory, regionId, and reportPath unexplained. This does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 function: 'Run mutation tests and return summarized mutation statistics.' It uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('mutation tests'), and the mention of mutation testing distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_unit_tests_tool and run_integration_tests_tool.

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 when to use the tool ('Run mutation tests'), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state exclusions. It provides some contextual detail about framework support and auto-detection, but no explicit 'use this over X' guidance.

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