Check architectural decisions that apply to a specific item's files before implementing. Also returns project-wide decisions for the item.
The architectural decisions that govern a specific item's declared files. CALL THIS BEFORE IMPLEMENTING: it is how a decision reaches the person writing the code, without them having to know it exists. Returns project-wide decisions too.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Item id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns project-wide decisions and acts as the delivery mechanism for decisions to implementers. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe the response shape, or mention any ordering or filtering behavior.
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?
Three short sentences deliver purpose, usage, and an important return-scope detail without filler. The usage directive is front-loaded and the wording is efficient, though the opening sentence could be more verb-driven.
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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and when to invoke it. It is slightly thin on output format and explicit side-effect disclosure, but adequate for a simple decision-retrieval 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 100%, so the single id parameter is already documented. The description only connects id to 'a specific item' without adding format, source, or interpretation details beyond the schema.
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 it returns architectural decisions governing a specific item's declared files, and adds that it also returns project-wide decisions. It is distinct enough from sibling decision tools like ddflow_decision_list or ddflow_decision_show, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 phrase 'CALL THIS BEFORE IMPLEMENTING' is an explicit, strong usage trigger, and 'it is how a decision reaches the person writing the code' explains its role. It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.