ddflow_lesson_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses exit 1 (sites named) and exit 2 (no pattern declared, explicitly NOT a pass — no mechanical ratchet exists). It does not describe the report body format, but the exit-code semantics are unusually honest and useful.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences: action first, then exit-code interpretation, then the trigger condition. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 exists, so the description must cover results — it does via exit-code semantics for the pass/fail distinction. The shape of the reported site list itself is left unspecified, a minor remaining gap for a verification tool.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents `as_agent`. The description adds nothing about it, which matches the baseline of 3 when structured fields do the work.

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: re-scan every lesson declaring a code `pattern` and report REAPPEARED sites. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ddflow_lesson_add and ddflow_lesson_search.

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 condition: 'Run after a change that touches code a lesson governs.' It does not name alternative tools for lesson handling, so it stops short of full when-not/alternative guidance.

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