submit_hypothesis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose core behavior: persisting a packet, letting run state index it, and avoiding copying large JSON into chat. It does not, however, describe success/failure responses, idempotency, or side effects for invalid packets, so transparency is partial.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then organized into trigger, workflow, and parameter sections. It is slightly repetitive across the trigger bullets—persist, index, and before verification all point to the same submission action—but no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a three-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to call it, where it fits in the pipeline, and what each parameter means. It omits return-value and failure-mode details, but the operational context is sufficient to use it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. Its PARAMETERS section defines all three parameters: run_id as the Co-Scientist run ID, hypothesis_packet as a JSON-compatible packet, and created_by as an optional agent/model ID. This is meaningful beyond the schema's bare titles, though it does not detail the packet's internal structure.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Submit') with a precise resource ('validated hypothesis packet') and target ('Co-Scientist run'). The qualifier 'validated' and the workflow reference to validate_hypothesis_packet distinguish it from sibling tools like submit_verification and start_hypothesis_verification.

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 includes an explicit 'AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS' section with three concrete conditions and a 'WORKFLOW POSITION' statement specifying use during the generation phase after validate_hypothesis_packet passes. It does not explicitly name alternatives for later stages, such as submit_verification, so it lacks a full when-not/alternatives statement.

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