ddflow_flow_show

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it explains that every choice is annotated with its provenance (operator config, recorded choice, or unchosen default) and that a `pending` section surfaces unmade choices. It omits anything about read-only/side-effect status, but as a 'show' tool the disclosed output semantics are the useful part.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the pending/next-step guidance. The first sentence is dense with a parenthetical list, but every clause (value, options, decider) conveys distinct information rather than padding.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must describe return content, and it does so well: the choice fields, their provenance categories, and the pending list. An agent knows what it will get and what to do next; only the exact output shape is left implicit, which is acceptable.

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 single parameter (as_agent) has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it and the baseline is 3. The description never references as_agent or its subagent/connection semantics, adding nothing 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?

Names a specific resource ('THIS project' branching model, release lines, workflow choices) and enumerates the returned content (value, options, decider source). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ddflow_flow_choose, which is the write/decision counterpart, so an agent can route without opening either 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 clear context for use (understanding how the project works) and routes the agent onward: when `pending` shows unmade choices, 'ask the operator, or pick what suits the project with ddflow_flow_choose'. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use, but the alternative is named with its triggering condition.

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