debate_converge

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

The description adds the behavioral context that the tool is deprecated, which is valuable. However, it does not describe any side effects, return values, or operational behavior beyond 'triggering' an analysis. With all annotations set to false, there are no safety claims, so the description carries full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the deprecation warning, and contains no unnecessary words. It conveys the essential information (deprecated, prefer alternative, basic action) efficiently.

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 deprecated tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key context: it is deprecated and the preferred replacement is provided. It lacks details about what convergence analysis entails or what the tool returns, but given the deprecation status, the essential operational guidance is present.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention the parameter at all. However, the single parameter 'debate_id' is self-explanatory from its name and the schema provides its type and title. The description adds no extra meaning, but the parameter is simple enough that ambiguity is limited.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Trigger convergence analysis for a debate.' It also explicitly names the preferred alternative (debate(prompt, mode=...)), distinguishing it from sibling tools. However, 'convergence analysis' is not elaborated, leaving some ambiguity about what the tool actually does.

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 gives explicit guidance to prefer debate(prompt, mode=...) instead, which serves as a clear alternative. It does not elaborate on when to use this tool (since it's deprecated, the implication is 'don't use'), but the deprecation notice effectively communicates the usage recommendation.

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