debate_list

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

The description explains behavioral details: sorting order, active_only filtering, and the merge logic with archive (memory wins on id collision). Since no annotations exist, this provides necessary transparency for an agent.

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 concise—two clear sentences. The first states the primary purpose, the second adds behavior details. No unnecessary words 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?

While the description covers core behavior, it lacks information about the output format (e.g., what fields are returned) and does not explain the limit parameter's role or pageination. Given no output schema, this is a gap.

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 description adds meaning for the active_only parameter by specifying its effect, but it does not explain the limit parameter beyond its default in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 lists debates sorted by started_at descending, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this listing tool from siblings like debate_cancel or debate_export, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, when to use active_only, or contrast with other debate-related tools.

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