roundtable_discuss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose core process behaviors—turns, building on previous responses—but omits any side effects, output format, or stopping behavior. It adds some behavioral context (conversational style) but remains thin for an orchestration tool.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every clause adds meaning—run action, turn-taking behavior, building on responses, conversational style—and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool has three parameters and no output schema, so the description should at least indicate the return/discussion flow. It is clear about the conversational process but does not state the output contents (e.g., final transcript, per-round responses). It is adequate for basic selection but incomplete for an agent wanting to interpret the result.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3; the description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond loosely mapping 'models take turns' to the rounds/models concept. Defaults and constraints are already in the schema, so the description does not need to compensate.

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?

Description opens with 'Run a roundtable discussion'—a specific verb and resource—and clarifies the mode: 'models take turns responding, building on previous responses.' The final clause 'More natural, conversational debate style' differentiates it from stricter debate/council formats 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?

The description implies use for natural, turn-taking debate-style discussions ('More natural, conversational debate style'), suggesting a contrast with more formal siblings like debate_discuss and council_discuss, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool or names alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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