list_hypotheses

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the read-only nature of the call and points to the equivalent resource, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or volume of results — relevant traits for a list tool despite the output schema existing.

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?

Short and front-loaded: purpose first, then read-only framing, then the resource counterpart and usage hint. Every sentence contributes; the resource-path sentence is slightly incidental but still informative.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the single parameter is fully covered by the schema. The description adds purpose, read-only status, and a usage rationale, leaving only minor gaps like result ordering or limits.

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% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already documents programme_id fully. The description only implies the programme scoping without adding format or syntax detail, which is the baseline 3 for well-covered schemas.

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+resource ("List all hypotheses in a programme") plus scope ("with their status"). The purpose is immediately legible and distinguishable from formulate/conclude/abandon_hypothesis siblings, though the description does not explicitly name those siblings to contrast with.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use ("recover a hypothesis id, e.g. in a new session") and names an alternative to avoid ("rather than querying the state database directly"). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance against the sibling mutation tools, but the context is clear.

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