register_hypotheses

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 discloses behavioral constraints on count and route validation but does not describe side effects, auth needs, or what happens upon successful registration. The rejection criteria are helpful but incomplete for full transparency.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and constraints, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no output schema and low schema coverage, the description lacks important context: it does not explain what 'challenger hypotheses' or 'frontier route' mean, nor does it describe the outcome or return value. The prerequisites are listed but not elaborated.

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%, meaning the description must compensate but fails to explain individual parameters like title, tradeoff, or falsifier. It only adds context about the count and route of hypotheses, leaving the meaning of other fields unclear.

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 a specific verb 'Register' and identifies the resource 'challenger hypotheses on frontier routes'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying count constraints (3-5) and route restrictions (no haiku/mini/nano/lite/prior-gen), setting it apart from other hypothesis-related tools.

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 explicitly states prerequisites (baseline hash-lock, frozen benchmark, measured baseline bar) and rejection conditions (<3 or >5 hypotheses, disallowed routes). Although it does not name alternative tools for different scenarios, the guidance is clear on when to use and what is required.

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