ddflow_next

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully declares that ready=[] is a valid result rather than an error and that returned items are parallelisable across worktrees, but it never states that the call is read-only/non-mutating or that it does not itself claim or reserve work — a critical distinction next to a claim tool in this family.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core question, with the empty-result caveat and parallelism note following. Slight redundancy in the emphatic closing clause, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape. It gives the top-level idea (a ready set plus per-item blocking reasons, and ready=[] when nothing is actionable) but not the actual fields an agent would inspect, so it is adequate but incomplete for a tool with no structured return contract.

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 description coverage is 100%, so kind ('task'/'phase'), phase and as_agent are already documented, and the description adds nothing about any of them. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses an implicit verb (it returns the ready set plus the reason each remaining item is blocked), which tells an agent what comes back, and it adds the operational implication that independent ready items can run in parallel worktrees. It never names the sibling it supersedes (ddflow_claim, ddflow_list, ddflow_board), so an agent still has to infer that this is the 'pick work' entry point rather than a claim.

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?

The most useful cue is a caution ('never means pick something anyway'), which guides behaviour when the set is empty, but there is no statement of when to call this rather than ddflow_claim or ddflow_list, and no prerequisites. Usage is implied by the phrasing rather than specified.

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