ddflow_import_verify

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It fully discloses the read-only nature ('Read-only; writes nothing'), the meaning of exit codes, what each of the three answer groups covers, and its relationship to other checks. This is exemplary for a no-annotation 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 long but every sentence carries substantive information: the core question, the three answer categories, exit code semantics, and the boundary with ddflow_doctor. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and read-only guarantee, then expands in a tightly structured way.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description tells an agent everything needed to call the tool and interpret results: what it verifies, what exit codes mean, when to run it, and what it deliberately excludes. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the detailed behavioral explanation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is already complete with an empty object definition, so there is no parameter meaning left to add. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific, multi-part question—'Was this project's history imported, is that import still true, and did anyone FINISH it?'—and then names the exact resources and checks involved. It is clearly distinct from siblings like ddflow_import and ddflow_doctor.

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 call it ('after any import, and whenever you are about to hand out imported work'), explains exit code meanings, and directly differentiates it from ddflow_doctor by saying what it does not cover and that ddflow_doctor should still be run. This is unambiguous usage guidance.

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