ddflow_external_sync

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does real work: it discloses a read-only relationship with the external repo ('Reads the other repository; never writes it'), a write to the local log, and the gating semantic that a dependency is only met once observed done here. It omits error/retry behavior and what the recording produces, but the safety and side-effect profile is unusually well covered for an unannotated 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the code sample and the routing note. The inline `needs = [...]` / [schedule] repos example is compactly illustrative, though slightly cryptic and pushes it just short of maximally tight.

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 sync tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the ordering constraint, the read/write split, and the dependency-gating rule. What is missing is any hint of the return/recorded output or failure behavior, but the core call decision is fully supported.

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 coverage is 100% for the single as_agent parameter, which the schema already documents (including the cross-reference to ddflow_identify). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: observe items in the sibling repositories this queue depends on and record changes in the log. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ddflow_next by naming it and explaining the external-dependency relationship, so an agent can partition it from the crowd of ddflow_* tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger and ordering: 'run this before ddflow_next when work waits on another project.' That names the alternative and the selecting condition. It stops short of saying when NOT to run it or whether it is idempotent/repeatable, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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