debate_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation (get status) and enumerates possible statuses. However, it does not disclose the return format, latency expectations, or any side effects (none expected). For a simple read tool, this is minimally adequate.

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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and includes specific examples of statuses.

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's simplicity, the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks mention of the return value (e.g., just a status string or full debate object) and does not set expectations for error cases like invalid debate_id. With no output schema, more detail would be helpful.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description does not add any information about the debate_id parameter beyond its implicit purpose. No format or constraints are given, so the agent must rely entirely on the schema's title 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 the action ('Get current status') and the resource ('a debate'). It lists possible statuses, which helps distinguish from action-oriented siblings like debate_run or debate_cancel. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from other query tools like debate_list, which returns all debates.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., debate_list for listing debates, or debate_export for exporting). No prerequisites or context for when to invoke are mentioned.

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