debate_discuss

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

The description discloses the full behavioral workflow (state positions, discuss in rounds, restate, synthesize), which is valuable beyond the simple name. However, it does not specify the return format or what the tool produces beyond the chairman's synthesis, and no annotations exist to cover these aspects.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the process steps efficiently, with no filler or redundant information.

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 workflow and gives clues about the final output (chairman's synthesis), but lacks an explicit statement of the return value or result structure. Since no output schema exists, this omission leaves a minor gap, though the process is otherwise well explained.

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 input schema fully describes all three parameters (models, rounds, question) with defaults and constraints. The tool description adds process context (how rounds and positions relate) but no additional semantic or syntactic details 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 clearly states the tool 'Run a structured debate' and details the multi-stage process (positions, rounds, final positions, chairman synthesis), which distinctly identifies it from sibling discussion 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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided; no alternatives or conditions are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the description's focus on structured debates, so it falls short of explicit guidelines.

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