View the entire work queue as a board with the critical path highlighted. Filter by phase to focus on specific stages and identify dependencies.
The whole work queue as a readable board, with the critical path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phase | No | Restrict to one phase. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The phrase 'readable board' hints at a read-only presentation, but the description never explicitly states that the tool does not modify the work queue, what it returns, or whether it performs any computation beyond presenting existing data.
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, efficient sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core concept ('whole work queue') and adds the distinguishing critical-path detail immediately, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to be fully actionable. It explains what the board shows at a high level but does not clarify the output format, confirm that the operation is side-effect-free, or provide enough context to distinguish this tool from the many related workflow-visualization siblings.
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 schema already documents the single 'phase' parameter with a clear description ('Restrict to one phase'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 identifies the resource as the 'whole work queue' and the deliverable as a 'readable board' with the critical path, which is specific enough to convey the tool's purpose. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'display' or 'show' and does not name or distinguish itself from visually or status-oriented siblings such as ddflow_status, ddflow_workflow, or ddflow_show.
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?
Usage is only implied by the description: use this when you want the entire work queue presented as a board with the critical path. It provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives, which is a noticeable gap given the large sibling tool list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.