debate_replay

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a two-step retrieval strategy (memory then archive) but omits key details: potential side effects (none expected), authentication needs, error behavior for invalid debate IDs, or response format. Minimal transparency for a read operation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every part adds value: the verb, resource, and caching strategy. Ideal length for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 one parameter and no output schema, so the description should explain what 'full transcript' includes (e.g., turns, metadata, timestamps). It fails to specify return value details, error responses, or limitations (e.g., archive availability). An agent lacks full information to verify correct usage or handle failures.

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 only parameter debate_id has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what debate_id is, how to obtain it (e.g., from debate_list), expected format, or constraints. The agent receives no semantic help beyond the parameter name and type.

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 'Return full transcript for a debate', specifying the verb (return), resource (transcript), and scope (full, for a debate). It distinguishes from siblings like debate_list (lists debates) and debate_export (likely export format). The caching hint 'memory first, then archive' adds specificity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as debate_export or debate_status. The caching hint is about execution, not selection criteria. The description does not address prerequisites or exclusions.

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