popper_implement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'persist', indicating a write operation, but provides no details on side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or what the 'solution record' contains. This is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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 sentence with no fluff, but it lacks structure (e.g., no separation of purpose from behavior). It is concise but could benefit from additional detail to improve completeness while maintaining brevity.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover key aspects like return values, prerequisites (e.g., a surviving hypothesis), and the nature of 'solution record'. It fails to do so, making it incomplete for reliable 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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (depth) including its enum and description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 emits a one-shot implementation prompt and persists a solution record. The verb 'emit' and 'persist' are specific, and 'surviving hypothesis' provides context distinguishing it from siblings like popper_hypothesize or popper_refute.

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 usage when there is a 'surviving hypothesis', giving some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, such as popper_solve or popper_clarify, and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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