ddflow_next

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that an empty ready set is a valid result rather than an error, and that agents should not pick work arbitrarily when nothing is actionable. It also discloses that ready items are independent and parallelizable, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple query description.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes: the first defines what the tool returns, the second explains parallel execution, and the third clarifies empty-result semantics. There is 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?

For a simple read-like tool with full schema parameter coverage, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly. It explains the ready set, reasons for non-actionable items, and empty-result behavior. It does not describe the output shape beyond ready=[], but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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% for both parameters ('kind' and 'phase'), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool identifies what can be started right now and the reasons for what cannot. It conveys the core resource (ready tasks/phases) via the ready set and parallel worktree context, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ddflow_status or ddflow_progress.

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 description gives clear usage context: call this to know what is actionable immediately, and use the ready set to run independent items in parallel. It also explains the critical interpretation of an empty ready set. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the guidance is strong.

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