Duck Debate

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by describing the tool as a structured multi-round process with specific formats. It clearly communicates that the tool orchestrates a debate, which involves multiple turns or rounds. Since annotations already cover safety, this additional process-level detail is valuable and non-contradictory.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Structured multi-round debate between ducks.' It immediately conveys the core action and then efficiently lists the three supported formats. Every word earns its place; no filler or 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?

Given the comprehensive schema (100% coverage, enums, defaults) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers essential context: it names the tool's primary function and format options. It does not explicitly mention multi-provider support or synthesizer handling, but those are fully documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat them. The one-sentence explanation is sufficient for a read-only, well-specified tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats the format enum values and their meanings already present in the schema (e.g., 'oxford (pro/con)'), adding no additional semantic value. It does not explain rounding behavior or provider selection beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Structured multi-round debate between ducks.' It specifies the action (debate), the resource (ducks), and differentiates from siblings like ask_duck (Q&A) and duck_vote (voting) by naming three distinct debate formats (oxford, socratic, adversarial). This makes the tool's function unambiguous.

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 usage for debate scenarios but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like duck_council or duck_judge. It lacks direct 'use when' or 'instead of' guidance, though the format list gives some context for selecting debate styles. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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