hypothesis_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or potential large data transfer. The only behavioral hint is that it returns a comprehensive object, and the instruction to read it before reviewing implies it is read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('One hypothesis in full') and lists the included content without unnecessary elaboration. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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?

The description provides a good overview of what the tool returns, enumerating the fields included. It also gives usage context. However, it does not mention any limitations or optional behaviors (such as how include_matches affects the response), though the schema handles that. Overall, it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (hypothesis_id and include_matches). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context about these parameters; it focuses solely on the output. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra value.

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 that the tool returns a comprehensive single hypothesis object including all relevant details. It explicitly mentions the content (statement, detailed text, citations, Elo history, reviews, tournament matches) and provides a clear use case ('Read this before reviewing or ranking it'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely list or retrieve summaries.

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 gives a direct instruction to read this before reviewing or ranking, indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or specify when not to use it, though the context of 'full hypothesis' implies it is the comprehensive retrieval option.

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