pick_next_speaker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a state change ('sets next expected speaker') but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, failure modes in non-mediated mode, or any impact on debate state. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, tightly packed line. It front-loads the critical mode constraint ('Mediated mode only') and then gives the role mapping. There is no filler or redundancy; every word contributes.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (2 required params, simple mutation) and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description omits what 'thread_id' refers to and what 'next expected speaker' means in the broader debate flow. It is minimally adequate but leaves contextual gaps that an agent must infer.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'role' parameter by listing allowed values (Wind|Wall|Door), but it provides no additional semantics for 'thread_id', which is left to the parameter name. Partial compensation for a coverage 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?

The description states a specific action ('sets next expected speaker') and resource with a clear mode constraint ('Mediated mode only'). It conveys the role mapping (Wind|Wall|Door), which helps distinguish this from generic debate tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 phrase 'Mediated mode only' implies when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explain when to prefer this over siblings like add_turn or run_debate, nor does it give exclusion criteria. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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