debate_start

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

Describes the 4-round structure and roles of Advocate, Critic, and Judge in detail, providing behavioral context. However, no annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error conditions.

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?

Highly concise, with a clear main sentence followed by structured bullet points for the rounds. Every line adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the process and roles adequately. No gaps remain given the schema and output schema coverage.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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?

Clearly states 'Start a structured 4-round debate meeting between an Advocate and a Critic,' specifying the action and resource. Differentiates from siblings like 'debate_code_review' by emphasizing structure and roles.

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?

Implies use for structured debate but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives mentioned, leaving usage somewhat implicit.

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