hypotheses_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering by Elo, the exact fields returned, and the deliberate omission of bodies. It does not explicitly mention pagination behavior or read-only status, but these are inferable from the 'List' verb and the limit/offset parameters in the schema.

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, efficient sentence that states the action, scope, ordering, and fields returned. The following note about omitted bodies and the alternative tool adds essential guidance without waste. 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 list tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the return field set, ordering rule, and key omission. It could have explicitly described pagination behavior, but limit/offset parameters in the schema cover that. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning to individual parameters like session_id, limit, state, or offset beyond what the schema already provides. It only restates the overall purpose rather than detailing parameter nuances.

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 lists a session's hypotheses ranked by Elo, enumerating specific fields (title, summary, state, matches played, dedup cluster). It distinguishes itself from hypothesis_get by noting bodies are omitted, and from session_list by focusing on hypotheses within a session.

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 an explicit alternative: 'Bodies are omitted; use hypothesis_get.' This communicates a clear when-not scenario (when bodies are needed) and points to the correct sibling tool. The context implies this is the go-to for summary listings of hypotheses per session.

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