Large language model multi-agent systems (LLM-MAS) offer a promising paradigm for harnessing collective intelligence to achieve more advanced forms of AI behaviour. While recent studies suggest that LLM-MAS can outperform LLM single-agent systems (LLM-SAS) on certain tasks, the lack of systematic experimental designs limits the strength and generality of these conclusions. We argue that a principled understanding of task complexity, such as the degree of sequential reasoning required and the breadth of capabilities involved, is essential for assessing the effectiveness of LLM-MAS in task solving. To this end, we propose a theoretical framework characterising tasks along two dimensions: depth, representing reasoning length, and width, representing capability diversity. We theoretically examine a representative class of LLM-MAS, namely the multi-agent debate system, and empirically evaluate its performance in both discriminative and generative tasks with varying depth and width. Theoretical and empirical results show that the benefit of LLM-MAS over LLM-SAS increases with both task depth and width, and the effect is more pronounced with respect to depth. This clarifies when LLM-MAS are beneficial and provides a principled foundation for designing future LLM-MAS methods and benchmarks.