register_hypotheses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes what the tool requires and rejects, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, or whether it is read-only or destructive. Partial disclosure is present.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then adding constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite the complexity of the input schema (array of objects with multiple fields), the description omits parameter details, return value, and error handling beyond rejections. It lacks completeness for a tool with many siblings and no output schema.

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 explain parameters. It mentions constraints on hypotheses (frontier routes, model exclusions) but does not explain the meaning of fields like 'tradeoff', 'falsifier', or 'operation' within the hypothesis object. The runId parameter is completely unexplained.

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', the resource 'challenger hypotheses', and includes constraints on number (3–5) and route type. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'test_hypothesis' that also involve 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?

Explicitly lists prerequisites ('baseline hash-lock + frozen benchmark + measured baseline bar') and rejection conditions ('<3 or >5, any haiku/mini/nano/lite/prior-gen route'), providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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