formulate_hypothesis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavior — that a hypothesis without a failure criterion is rejected — which is valuable validation context. However it says nothing about permissions, whether this persists a new hypothesis record, or side effects, leaving meaningful gaps for a creation tool.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the core action and the key constraint. The '(commitment 3)' reference appears twice (header and failure_criterion mention), which is minor redundancy but the text stays lean overall.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all four params are documented in the schema. Still, for a no-annotation tool that apparently creates a hypothesis under a programme, the description omits state-changing context and the relationship to sibling lifecycle tools, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The one parameter note ('variables_involved may be sent as a JSON-encoded string list') largely restates the schema text 'list or JSON-encoded list', so it adds little beyond the structured field.

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?

States a specific verb (formulate) and resource (hypothesis) with the qualifier 'falsifiable', which is meaningful. It does not name or contrast with siblings like conclude_hypothesis, abandon_hypothesis, or design_experiment, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus conclude_hypothesis, abandon_hypothesis, or design_experiment, nor any prerequisites such as requiring an existing programme. The only contextual hint is the '(commitment 3)' tag, which is internal jargon rather than usable routing information.

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