ddflow_pins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the three outputs, the exit-2 sentinel condition and its prescribed handling, and the caveat that results are a lower bound. It does not state that the tool is non-mutating or describe performance/caching, but for an analysis tool the disclosed failure-mode semantics are the material ones.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition ('BEFORE compressing...') and information-dense with no filler sentences. The prose is somewhat convoluted in the middle clause, but every sentence carries a distinct instruction (purpose, exit-2 fallback, lower-bound caveat).

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?

With no output schema and 100% schema coverage on inputs, the description must convey return semantics, and it names the three things returned plus the exit-2 case. It is nearly complete for a read-only analysis tool; only the shape/format of the returned pin listing is left unstated.

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 all five parameters (top, tests, as_agent, document, min_needle) are already documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific capability: reporting which text in an instruction file is pinned by tests, which suites to re-run, and the longest unpinned stretches. It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from every sibling (nothing else in the list does pin analysis). It is framed as a workflow trigger rather than a plain verb+resource, which is slightly indirect but still clear.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('BEFORE compressing or rewording an instruction file') with concrete artifact types (rulebook, driver, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, prompt template), plus explicit when-not/fallback behavior: 'Exit 2 when there is no Python suite... then treat ALL of it as pinned.' It also warns the agent not to over-trust the output ('Free text is a lower bound, not permission -- read it first').

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