show_mutant

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 states the tool shows code diff and details, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like error handling, execution time, dependencies on mutmut, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value, but the formatting with bullet-like sections could be slightly more streamlined for direct readability.

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 an output schema (Returns: str), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately, but with no annotations and moderate complexity (2 parameters, 1 required), it could benefit from more behavioral context to be fully complete for safe agent use.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'mutation_id' is explained as 'The ID of the mutant to show,' and 'venv_path' as 'Path to the virtual environment, if any.' Given the schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well by clarifying what each parameter represents, though it lacks format or example details.

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 purpose: 'Show the code diff and details for a specific mutant using mutmut show.' It specifies the verb ('show'), resource ('mutant'), and method ('mutmut show'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'show_results' or 'show_survivors' beyond the focus on a specific mutant ID.

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. It mentions the tool's function but does not indicate scenarios for its use, prerequisites, or how it differs from siblings such as 'show_results' or 'show_survivors', leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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