peer_debate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the need for independent comparison and idempotency key for retries, but does not describe side effects, output format, or behavior under 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?

The description is concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with 'Before calling:', which is clear. However, it packs multiple instructions into a single paragraph, slightly reducing readability.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how results are presented. It covers preparation well but lacks information on the tool's output, which is needed for complete understanding.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by instructing how to use risk_level (e.g., high for auth, payments) and advising on setting task with specific concerns. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 is for independently comparing Plan A vs Plan B, which aligns with the tool name 'peer_debate'. It specifies the input requirements (files, diffs, task) but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like peer_compare.

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 provides prerequisites and instructions for preparing inputs (read files, attach contents, set task with goals). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., peer_compare) and does not mention when not to use it.

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