Runs integrity checks to detect log corruption, dependency cycles, unknown dependencies, orphaned worktrees, and stale indexes, then reports issues needing repair.
Integrity and health check: log corruption, dependency cycles, unknown dependencies, orphaned worktrees, stale index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must stand alone, but it never states whether this tool only inspects and reports, or may also repair/correct issues such as stale indexes or orphaned worktrees. It also does not disclose output format, side effects, or failure behavior, which is significant for a 'doctor' 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?
The description is one compact, front-loaded sentence that uses a colon-delimited list to pack five concrete check categories. Every item earns its place and no filler is present.
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?
Although the tool has no parameters, there is no output schema and no annotation safety profile, so the description should at least indicate whether the tool mutates state and what it returns/reports. It does neither, leaving an agent unable to predict the outcome of invoking ddflow_doctor.
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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain; the baseline is 4. The description still adds value by listing the focus areas of the check.
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 states the tool performs an integrity/health check and enumerates specific conditions it examines: log corruption, dependency cycles, unknown dependencies, orphaned worktrees, stale index. This makes the scope clear, though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb command and does not contrast with ddflow_status.
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?
No guidance is given about when to run this tool versus related tools such as ddflow_status, ddflow_recover, or ddflow_cleanup. The intended use is only implied by the 'health check' label; there are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.