get_survived_mutants

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.