debate_export

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it explains format defaults and truncation mechanism. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, or any side effects.

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 well-structured: front-loaded main purpose, then separate sections for each parameter. No redundant sentences, though the backtick formatting for parameter names is slightly inconsistent.

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 no output schema and three parameters, the description covers the key aspects: what the tool does, format options, and a transport-related feature. However, it does not describe the return value structure or any error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 0%, but the description adds significant meaning to two of three parameters: explains 'format' values and default, and describes 'truncate_body_chars' purpose and behavior. Only 'debate_id' lacks elaboration, which is self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb 'render' and resource 'debate' and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like debate_replay or debate_list by focusing on export to markdown/JSON.

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 exporting debates, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like debate_replay or debate_list, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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