ddflow_cadence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does provide one useful trait: 'Derived from completed work, so there is no state file to drift.' However, it fails to disclose that passing `ran`/`note` records a pass run, which is a mutating behavior an agent needs to know before invoking the tool.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose and gives examples; the second adds a valuable behavioral guarantee. Every clause earns its place.

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 query behavior is well described and the schema covers the `ran`/`note` parameters, so the core use case is usable. However, the description does not mention the record/completion mode at all, nor clarify what 'due' means in cadence terms, leaving a moderate gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by enumerating concrete pass names and the kinds of work the cadence tracks, which helps an agent infer plausible values for `ran` and the context for `note`. It does not map directly to parameters, but the examples are genuinely useful.

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 a specific resource and scope: periodic whole-repo passes that are due, with concrete examples (integration tests, architecture review, mutation testing, dedupe sweep, lessons compression). It is clearly distinct from sibling status/progress tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or '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?

The description implies the usage scenario—check which periodic passes are due—but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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