get_thesis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds that the result includes evidence and falsifiers, but doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, error behavior, or any prerequisites. The verb 'get' implies retrieval, but that is minimal.

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?

Two sentences, directly states purpose and parameter origin, with no filler. 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?

The tool is simple (one required param) and an output schema exists, so the description adequately describes the return envelope. It covers the key contextual link to journal_thesis, though it could mention when to use it relative to list_theses.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by defining thesis_id as 'Identifier returned by journal_thesis,' providing provenance. This adds meaning beyond the bare string schema, though it doesn't detail format or validation.

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 uses the specific verb 'get' and names the resource ('recorded thesis') with its scope ('in full, including its evidence and falsifiers'). It distinguishes from sibling list_theses/journal_theses by indicating a single full thesis, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides context: use with a thesis_id returned by journal_thesis, which implies a workflow. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to list_theses or close_thesis, so the guidance is only implied rather than clearly stated.

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