debate_run

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: streaming via ctx.report_progress, termination conditions (max_turns, done, cancel, etc.), and return status taxonomy. This is highly 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?

The description is concise with a front-loaded purpose, a single sentence for arguments, and bullet points for return statuses. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return shapes and streaming. It covers termination conditions and statuses but lacks details on error handling or side effects. Reasonably complete for a complex tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that arguments are same as debate_start plus ctx (injected). While this links to another description for details, it doesn't elaborate on each parameter's meaning. The added value is moderate.

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 runs an async round-robin debate to completion with streaming progress, and distinguishes from siblings by noting it shares arguments with debate_start. It covers termination conditions and return statuses, making the purpose very specific.

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 completing a debate, referencing same arguments as debate_start. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like debate_start or debate_cancel. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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