record_hypothesis

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool mutates data, what happens if the hypothesis already exists, or any side effects. The description only states the action without behavioral details.

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 short and to the point, with two sentences and an args list. However, the args list partially repeats the property names, which could be considered slightly redundant, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention return values, error conditions, or what happens after recording. For a relatively simple tool, the description lacks completeness about the tool's behavior and outcomes.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the tool description includes an 'Args' list that explains the parameters ('hypothesis: The core assumption...', 'prediction: What outcome...'). This adds meaning beyond the empty schema descriptions, but the explanations are brief and could be more specific.

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 records a hypothesis into the Temporal Knowledge Graph, specifying the verb 'Record' and the resource 'prospective hypothesis and expectation'. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'resolve_hypothesis' or 'record_decision', the focus on recording a hypothesis with a prediction distinguishes it sufficiently.

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 such as 'resolve_hypothesis', 'record_decision', or 'validate_predictions'. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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