debate_status

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

Annotations already reveal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the deprecation context and the preferred alternative, which is extra behavioral/lifecycle information beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 most actionable information (deprecation and alternative). Every clause serves a purpose; there is no wasted text.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient to convey the core function and deprecation. However, it does not describe what the "current state" includes or any response expectations, which would enhance completeness given the absence of an output schema.

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 for parameter meaning, but it does not. The sole parameter `debate_id` is not explained. Although the name is somewhat self-evident, the description provides no explicit guidance on its format or purpose, leaving a gap in a low-coverage 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: "Get current state of a debate." It also distinguishes itself by flagging deprecation and pointing to a preferred alternative (`debate(prompt, mode=...)`), which helps an agent understand its role and relative standing among siblings.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: "DEPRECATED (v0.4) — prefer debate(prompt, mode=...)." This directly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool and names the alternative. This is more than adequate for guiding selection.

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