gangtise_viewpoint_debate_check

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

The description only states it queries status, which implies a read operation, but does not elaborate on behavior like polling mechanisms, possible status values, or response structure. With no annotations, more detail is needed.

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 sentence, achieving conciseness but lacking structure. It does not front-load critical information like input requirements or return format, making it minimally viable.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format, possible statuses, or how to interpret results. For a simple check tool, more context is necessary.

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?

The only parameter 'dataId' has no description in the input schema (0% coverage), and the description does not explain its purpose or expected format. It adds no value beyond the schema.

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 specifies the action (query) and resource (generation status of long-short debate task), clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'gangtise_viewpoint_debate', which likely creates the task, so a slight deduction applies.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'gangtise_viewpoint_debate' for creating tasks. There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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