List hypotheses in a session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It accurately conveys a read-only listing operation and the ordering, but it does not mention potential filter behavior, pagination, return shape, or side effects. It is minimally sufficient but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured for a simple list tool.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out the optional status filter and does not describe the return value shape. It is enough for basic tool selection but not fully complete for invocation without inspecting the 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 should compensate by explaining parameters. It only indirectly references sessionId via 'for a debugging session' and completely omits the optional 'status' filter. The schema and enum provide the only parameter meaning, with little help from the description.

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 the specific verb 'Lists' and clearly identifies the resource ('hypotheses') and scope ('for a debugging session'). Adding 'oldest first' provides distinctive operational detail that helps differentiate it from sibling tools like hypothesis_create or execution_list.

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 makes clear this tool is for retrieving hypotheses within a debugging session, which is a distinct use case from session listing or execution listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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