debate_code_review

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 4-round debate mechanics, the function of each role, exactly what is returned (role assignments, round rules, Round 1 starter prompt) and — critically — the negative behavior that no dispatch_plan is produced so nothing is auto-spawned. The absence of auth/permission notes is a minor gap for a tool that appears to create structured state rather than mutate data destructively.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a scannable role list, then the return-value caveat and the alternative in a single closing sentence. No filler sentences; every line carries either scope, mechanism, or routing information.

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 moderately complex orchestration tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, debate structure, return semantics, and the alternative tool. Return-value details are correctly left to the output schema, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so all six parameters (judge, critic, team_id, advocate, file_path, change_description) are already documented with defaults. The description adds only thematic meaning about what each role does in the debate, which the schema's own role descriptions largely cover. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Start a debate-style code review') with an explicit scope ('for a specific file or change'). It immediately enumerates the three roles and the 4-round shape, so an agent can distinguish it from debate_start, meeting_create, and other review tools without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool versus the alternative: this one returns no dispatch_plan so participants are spawned by hand, and it names meeting_create(template="debate", participants=[...]) for ready-to-paste spawn calls. That is a concrete when/when-not routing instruction.

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