validate_hypothesis_packet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the gating nature, return shape (valid status, issue count, actionable issues), and what to do on valid=False. It does not explicitly state 'no side effects,' but the 'before saving' and 'before verification' framing strongly implies it is a non-mutating check.

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 organized with clear headings and bullet triggers, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Minor redundancy exists between the opening sentence, the trigger list, and WORKFLOW POSITION all repeating 'before verification,' but the structure is still efficient.

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 single-parameter validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, when to call, workflow position, parameter, and return semantics. It is missing exact response fields and packet schema details, but those are partially covered by the gating rationale and sibling tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the packet as a 'JSON-compatible hypothesis packet object' and hints at the relevant fields via missing citations, evidence, lineage, or scores. However, it does not specify the packet structure or required fields, leaving the agent to rely on get_hypothesis_packet_schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Validate a Co-Scientist hypothesis packet before verification.' The automatic triggers and workflow position ('Gate every packet before verification') make its role distinct from siblings like start_hypothesis_verification or verify_co_scientist_citations.

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 gives explicit AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS with concrete call conditions (generation agent proposes, before saving, before sending to verification, need actionable errors) and a clear workflow position. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is unambiguous.

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