hypothesis_branch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the orthogonality threshold and falsification-probe concept, but omits persistence, mutation effects, what each mode actually changes, and return behavior.

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 extremely terse and front-loaded: core concept, mode semantics, and usage boundaries appear immediately with no filler.

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?

This is a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description is too sparse for that complexity, leaving several parameters and the overall behavior of register/falsify/select under-explained.

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. It only explains mode values and the falsify-specific probe_succeeded flag; lesson, branches, and hypothesis_id are left undocumented.

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 identifies a specific domain: managing orthogonal hypotheses with a Jaccard threshold and falsification probes, with modes register/falsify/select. That is more specific than a tautology, but 'branch' remains somewhat opaque and there is no explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives a clear USE WHEN condition ('several plausible root causes to prune') and a clear DO NOT USE condition ('to run the probe'). It does not name the alternative tool for running probes, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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