debate_internal

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: arguments are supported only by recalled memory evidence, no external reasoning, convergence detection halts deliberation, and consensus memory inscription. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not mention all possible side effects or errors.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear title, two sentences of explanatory detail, and a structured Args list. No filler or redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the core purpose, process, side effects, and constraints. It does not explain return values (but an output schema exists) nor explicit usage timing, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's function and behavior.

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. The Args list provides brief definitions for all four parameters, but the explanations are minimal (e.g., 'project_path: Project root') and add limited value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 clearly states the tool convenes an internal structured debate grounded in memory evidence, naming specific roles (advocate/challenger/judge). It distinguishes itself from siblings by highlighting that no external reasoning is invoked and that the synthesis is recorded as consensus memory.

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 implies the tool is for internal deliberation using memory evidence, but provides no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor does it name alternative tools. Usage context is implied but not clearly stated.

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