debate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key process: it runs a multi-round debate loop, critiques content, suggests revisions, and returns structured issues, patches, and test recommendations. It does not mention cost/token implications, early stopping via confidence_threshold, or exact internal iteration semantics, but the core behavioral pattern is transparent.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action and scope, then states the output format, making it easy to parse quickly without losing critical 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 six-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description communicates the basic behavior and return categories but not how budget, rounds, artifacts, or confidence_threshold interact with the debate loop. It also omits explicit usage guidance and output structure detail, though the input schema covers parameter meaning well.

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 every parameter including goal, budget, rounds, context, artifacts, and confidence_threshold already has a description in the schema. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline because the schema fully covers the parameter semantics.

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 names a specific action ('Runs a full multi-round debate loop') and a specific resource ('ChatGPT critiques content and suggests revisions'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools gpt_critique and gpt_verify by emphasizing the multi-round, iterative nature rather than a single critique or verification.

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?

Usage context is implied by the phrase 'full multi-round debate loop,' which suggests this tool is for iterative critique-and-revise sessions rather than one-off critique or verification. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so the agent must infer when to choose this over gpt_critique or gpt_verify.

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