Claude Debate Open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that Claude independently verifies verifiable items, returns per-claim rulings and counter-claims, never modifies anything, and includes a specific note about the result footer's format field. Minor omissions: no mention of authentication needs or rate limits, but overall transparent.

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 fairly long but information-dense. It front-loads the primary purpose and then provides necessary details. Every sentence adds value, though some minor trimming could be done. No wasted words.

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 complex tool with no output schema and multiple parameters, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the debate flow, evidence submission, verification process, output parsing instructions, and cost considerations. It covers all essential aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of each parameter in context (e.g., 'workspace_dir' becomes Claude's working directory) and elaborates on the evidence items (types, claim, ref). It does not repeat schema details but augments them.

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's purpose: 'Open a structured, evidence-based debate with Claude about a significant decision.' It specifies the action (open a debate), the resource (Claude), and the context (evidence-based). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'claude_debate_reply' for continuation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'architecture decisions, risky changes, and security-sensitive work, not routine questions.' It also notes that it is 'Expensive and slow' and directs users to 'Continue rounds with claude_debate_reply.'

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