Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• run_mutation_testsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action of running mutation tests and does not disclose side effects, resource usage, or what happens after execution (e.g., reports).

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single concise sentence, clearly front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place with no wasted text.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The schema is rich and fully documents parameters, but the description lacks behavioral context such as prerequisites, output format, or performance implications. Still, for a simple execution tool it is minimally adequate.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Führt aus' - executes) and clearly identifies the resource ('Stryker Mutationstests') with scope ('für das Projekt oder spezifische Dateien'). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling run_targeted_mutation_tests.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus run_targeted_mutation_tests or other alternatives. The description only states what it does without mentioning exclusions or preferred use cases.

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

• get_mutation_scoreA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'retrieves' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly rule out side effects, mention authentication requirements, pagination, or return format. The 'detailed summary' is vague and adds little transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word earns its place without redundancy or filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple no-parameter getter, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose. However, it lacks details about the return format, whether it requires prior test execution, and what 'detailed summary' entails. Sibling tools provide some context, but the description itself could be more complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, and the schema trivially covers 100% of them. According to the baseline for 0 params (4), the description is not required to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't need to since there are none.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool retrieves the current mutation score and a detailed summary, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like run_mutation_tests and get_survived_mutants, which focus on running tests or listing mutants.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as after running mutation tests. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the usage context entirely unaddressed.

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

• configure_desktop_notificationsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'configures' which implies changing settings, but it does not mention whether changes are persistent, require a restart, or have side effects. For a mutation tool, this lack of detail leaves the agent without critical behavioral expectations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and enumerates the key configurable fields. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple configuration tool with three boolean parameters and no output schema, the description provides a satisfactory overview. It could mention return behavior or persistence, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations, it is reasonably complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three boolean parameters ( sound, enabled, persistentOverlay). The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: configuring native desktop notifications, specifically listing the configurable aspects (enable, sound, persistent status). The verb 'configure' is specific, and the resource is clearly identified, distinguishing it from the unrelated sibling tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implicitly communicates when to use this tool (when configuring desktop notifications) by naming the resource and the settings. There are no exclusions or alternative tools mentioned, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so no comparison is needed. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for notification settings.

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

• run_targeted_mutation_testsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the core behavior (detecting changed files and running tests), but it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether the working tree is modified), required permissions, or error/success semantics. This is adequate but not rich.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, front-loaded German sentence that concisely conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Every part is meaningful, with no filler or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to invoke uncommitted changes, how the parameters interact (e.g., commitSha vs from/toRevision), or what the command returns. The deprecated baseBranch is only identified in the schema, not the description.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds high-level context by grouping parameters around commits, commit ranges, and uncommitted changes, but it does not explain parameter precedence or how to specify 'uncommitted changes' using the available parameters.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states a specific action: detecting Git-changed TypeScript files and running mutation tests targeted only for those. It enumerates supported scopes (commits, commit ranges, uncommitted changes), which strongly differentiates it from the sibling tool run_mutation_tests.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The phrase 'gezielt nur für diese' clearly implies this tool is for targeted mutation testing on changed files, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly name run_mutation_tests as the alternative for full test runs or state when not to use this tool.

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

• get_survived_mutantsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (file path, line, mutator type, replacement code), which gives the agent expectations about the return value. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any prerequisites, though 'Liefert' suggests a non-mutating operation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the included data fields. Every word earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple read tool with one optional parameter and a clear output description, the description is largely complete. It lacks explicit usage guidance and notes on preconditions, but the core functionality and return value are well covered.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for the optional filePath parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline for schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb 'Liefert' (delivers) and identifies the resource 'alle überlebenden Mutanten' (all survived mutants), along with the specific data fields included (file path, line, mutator type, replacement code). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_mutation_tests or get_mutation_score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies this tool is for retrieving survivors after mutation testing, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus running mutation tests or getting the mutation score. There are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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