run_targeted_mutation_tests

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.