thesis_weak_points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context by revealing that the analysis draws on "opposing views already in the graph" — i.e. it reads stored relations, not just the thesis record — but says nothing about what happens when the thesis lacks assumptions or how the categories are ranked.

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?

One tight sentence-eque block with the core idea ("where a thesis is weakest") front-loaded, followed by the concrete failure categories. No filler; the telegraphic style is dense but readable.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description's four categories effectively preview the kinds of findings produced. For a single-parameter read-only analysis tool with annotations, this is close to complete, with the only real omission being the lack of routing guidance against sibling analysis tools.

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 single thesis_id parameter is undocumented in both places; the description never mentions it or how to obtain one. With only one required, self-evidently named parameter the gap is minor, but it is a genuine gap rather than filled by 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 names the resource (a thesis) and specifies exactly what it surfaces — thin/expiring assumptions, undisclosed supplier or customer dependencies, non-firing triggers, and opposing views already in the graph. That enumeration distinguishes it from generic siblings like whatif or audit, even though the verb is implicit ("Where a thesis is weakest") rather than stated.

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 trailing "Input for /torus:challenge" implies a downstream workflow, so an agent can infer this is a pre-challenge diagnostic step. But it never states when to prefer this over thesis_memo, whatif, scorecard, or audit, nor any precondition such as requiring a previously recorded thesis.

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