get_hypothesis_packet_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool returns a 'JSON-compatible schema description' and clarifies the artifact-first scope of the packet. It also provides workflow context that helps an agent understand the tool's role, though it does not discuss side effects or access requirements, which are less critical for a getter.

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 well-structured with clear trigger lists and workflow positioning, and the main action is front-loaded. It is slightly repetitive with phrases like 'hypothesis packet' appearing multiple times, but every section serves a useful 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and when to call it. It could go deeper into what the schema covers, but the tool's entire purpose is to deliver that schema, so listing its contents here would be redundant.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter-specific meaning to add, and the description correctly focuses on what the schema contains rather than trying to document nonexistent arguments.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the Phase 1 Co-Scientist hypothesis packet schema.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on the schema of hypothesis packets rather than validation, submission, or scope policy.

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 AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS section explicitly lists when to call the tool, and the WORKFLOW POSITION adds ordering context ('after scope screening and before saving or sending'). However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for related needs, so it stops short of a full 5.

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