Record a debugging hypothesis

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 does not disclose return values, error behavior, persistence guarantees, or whether an existing session is validated. The text is mostly motivational ('the point of instrumentation...') rather than describing the tool's actual behavior.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds a valuable usage tip. Every word contributes meaning; no filler or 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?

For a simple creation tool, the description covers the 'what' and a key usage point, but it omits expected information about the output (e.g., created hypothesis ID), confirmation of success, or the requirement that the sessionId refer to an existing session. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is a noticeable 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 67% (statement and rationale have descriptions, sessionId does not). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only provides an example for 'statement' within the schema itself. Thus it meets the baseline without compensating for the undocumented sessionId.

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's function: 'Records a falsifiable hypothesis about the root cause of a bug within a debugging session.' It uses a specific verb ('records') and resource ('hypothesis'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like hypothesis_update and hypothesis_list by focusing on the creation act.

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 offers explicit usage guidance: 'Form several distinct, competing hypotheses rather than one — the point of instrumentation is to gather evidence that can confirm some and refute others.' This gives contextual advice on when and how to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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