ddflow_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-destructive default ('writes NOTHING until `apply` is true'), the guess-based nature of the proposal, and the exit code meaning (Exit 2 = nothing found). This is thorough behavioral disclosure for a tool that reads and proposes.

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 longer than average but every sentence adds value: purpose, usage timing, rationale, guess caveat, and exit code. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and default behavior. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use, what it doesn't do, and how to interpret failure. It does not describe the return format or the structure of the proposal, but that is minor given the other details. Overall, adequately complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about `apply` (default false, reports only) and mentions the guess nature, but does not significantly enhance the parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain `max_tasks` or `include_done` beyond schema descriptions.

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 a specific action: read existing history artifacts (todo checklists, lessons, ADRs, unmerged branches) and propose them as queue items. It also clarifies the default behavior (reports only, no writes until `apply` is true), which distinguishes it from write-oriented tools. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like ddflow_import_verify.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Call this right after `ddflow_setup` on any repository that is not brand new.' It explains why (empty queue hides in-flight work) and points to an alternative (`import-existing-project` prompt) for fixing the guessed structure. This gives clear decision guidance without ambiguity.

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