debate_history

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds important behavioral context: it is deprecated since v0.4 and superseded by debate(prompt, mode=...). This is a valuable disclosure beyond the annotations, indicating possible instability or removal.

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 concise sentences, with the deprecation warning front-loaded to capture attention. There is no unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient and well-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?

The description covers purpose and deprecation, but it omits details about the 'limit' parameter and the return format. Given the tool's simplicity, the missing parameter documentation is a noticeable gap, though the deprecation redirect does partially compensate.

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 sole parameter 'limit' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention it. The agent receives no clarification on what 'limit' controls—whether it limits the number of debates, pagination, or something else—so the parameter semantics are unclear.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' to indicate the action, names the resource ('past debates and their outcomes'), and clearly distinguishes itself from the preferred alternative debate(prompt, mode=...). This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious and differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly marks the tool as DEPRECATED and advises to prefer debate(prompt, mode=...). This provides clear 'when to use vs. alternative' guidance, effectively instructing the agent not to use this tool and directing it to the recommended replacement.

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