get_hypothesis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Return' wording is consistent with those. The phrase 'current hypothesis revision' adds a small amount of scoping context, but the description does not disclose return behavior, error cases, or versioning semantics beyond what the annotations imply.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core operation and is appropriately sized for a simple read 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?

For a one-parameter read operation with an output schema and clear safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any contextual detail about what a 'hypothesis revision' is, how to obtain a hypothesis_id, or when this call is meaningful relative to recording and using hypotheses.

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 must compensate for explaining the required hypothesis_id parameter. It does not; the description only mentions 'hypothesis revision' and leaves the agent to infer that hypothesis_id identifies the relevant hypothesis. The parameter name alone provides basic meaning, but no additional semantic detail is offered.

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 'Return the current hypothesis revision' clearly states the verb (return), the resource (hypothesis revision), and the operation's read-only nature. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like record_hypothesis, which creates rather than reads, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as record_hypothesis or list_findings. It does not state prerequisites, typical call context, or what distinguishes a 'current revision' from other hypothesis-related operations.

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