gangtise_viewpoint_debate

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses asynchronous behavior, wait time parameter, and that timeout returns a dataId. This gives reasonable transparency into the tool's operation, though it doesn't cover rate limits or auth requirements.

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?

Description is two sentences, no filler, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part earns its place.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and async behavior adequately. However, without an output schema, more detail about what the report contains might be helpful, but not required for basic use.

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% with parameter descriptions already present. The description mentions viewpoint and waitSeconds but adds no new meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it generates an AI bull-bear debate report for a given investment viewpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gangtise_viewpoint_debate_check by mentioning the async behavior (waitSeconds, dataId on timeout), which implies a submit-then-check pattern.

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?

Description explains the wait mechanism and default timeout, giving context on usage. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative (gangtise_viewpoint_debate_check) for retrieving results after timeout, leaving some ambiguity.

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