agora_list_debates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does add a genuine trust signal by flagging the returned content as 'untrusted remote content', which is useful for an agent deciding how to handle output. However, it says nothing about permissions, pagination, ordering, or whether the space must be entered first.

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?

One short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple one-param list. Still, with no annotations the description should cover call prerequisites (space membership/entry) and result scope, which it omits.

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?

The single required space_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not; 'in a Space' only loosely ties the param to scope. Because it is one self-explanatory identifier and the schema marks it required, this is not as severe as a multi-param gap.

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 (List) and resource (Debates) scoped to a Space, which cleanly separates it from sibling mutations like agora_create_debate, agora_join_debate, and agora_set_debate_position. It does not explicitly name a sibling to compare against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., how it differs from get_argument_neighborhood or agora_list_claims). Usage is only inferable from the verb+scope.

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