test_hypothesis

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

The description discloses key behavioral rules: a no-improvement run must be recorded as NO_IMPROVEMENT (not 'perfect'), and failure counter is bumped. It also requires measurementRef. Without annotations, this provides important behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It is efficient but could benefit from clearer structure or bullet points for parameter guidelines.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description partially explains the test recording process but lacks details on return values, error handling, or how to properly structure the fullTest object. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 description does not explain the three required parameters (runId, hypothesisId, fullTest) beyond mentioning measurementRef. It adds some context about agentRuns but insufficiently compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool records a 'full test of a hypothesis' involving 3-5 frontier agents. It adds specificity about agent runs requiring measurementRef. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_full_test' or 'run_campaign', so purpose is clear but not uniquely distinguished.

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 implies usage when a full test is completed but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like loop_next or execute_full_test. No 'when not to use' or alternative references.

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