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 like the rejection criteria and the prerequisite of a 'benchmark-first' state, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it modifies state), required permissions, or failure modes.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that conveys the core purpose, constraints, and prerequisites without any extraneous words.

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 the complexity of the input schema (nested objects with many fields) and no output schema, the description only partially informs the agent. It covers usage constraints but fails to explain the structure of the `hypotheses` objects, which is a significant gap.

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% and the tool description does not explain any parameters. The `runId` and `hypotheses` array fields, including their nested properties, remain completely undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate them.

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 the action 'Register' and the resource 'challenger hypotheses', specifying the quantity range (3–5) and the constraint 'frontier route'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'test_hypothesis' which likely handles individual hypotheses.

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 explicit prerequisites ('Requires baseline hash-lock + frozen benchmark + measured baseline bar') and rejection conditions ('Rejects <3 or >5, and any haiku/mini/nano/lite/prior-gen route'). However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool versus siblings.

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