Duck Iteration

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with refinement. The description adds that it alternates rounds but does not clarify return format (final response vs all steps) or potential side effects (openWorldHint=true is ambiguous).

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 sentence that captures the essence efficiently. However, it lacks front-loaded key details such as what the tool returns.

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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, how results are presented, or the exact behavior of the iteration process (e.g., what the final result is).

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond the high-level process.

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 iteratively refines a response between two ducks with generating and critiquing roles. It distinguishes from sibling tools like duck_debate or duck_council by specifying the ping-pong refinement process.

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 iterative refinement but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like duck_debate or duck_council. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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