roast_cli_debate

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals that positions are assigned and not necessarily held, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks detail on side effects, costs, or what 'constitutional position anchoring' entails. Some behavioral context is provided, but not comprehensive.

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 with three front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives an instruction, and the third warns about output interpretation. It wastes no words but could be slightly more structured.

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 17 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain pagination parameters (cursor, offset, context_id), debate flow, return values, or configuration of agents/models. The schema descriptions help, but the tool description itself is insufficient for full 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 description coverage is 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no significant per-parameter detail beyond what is in the schema, aside from emphasizing extraction of pro/con positions. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 function: deploying two CLI agents in a structured adversarial debate with constitutional position anchoring. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'roast' (likely single-agent) and 'cli_agent_roster' (listing agents).

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 specific usage instructions: 'Calling agent should extract PRO/CON positions from topic before invoking' and advises critical evaluation of output since positions are assigned. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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