get_mutation_score

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.