Duck Debate

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: multi-round nature and format options. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description complements rather than repeats. Could mention output or side effects, but overall transparent.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place. Efficient and clear.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, output schema exists), the description covers core functionality. It omits details like provider defaults or output nature, but those are covered by the schema. Nearly complete for decision-making.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds parenthetical explanations for formats (e.g., 'pro/con'), enhancing understanding beyond the schema's enum labels. Slight value-add.

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 conducts 'structured multi-round debate between ducks' and lists three distinct formats. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_duck, chat_with_duck, and compare_ducks.

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 usage for debates but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like duck_judge or compare_ducks. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.

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