ddflow_prompts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that eject copies shipped defaults into .ddflow/prompts/ and that templates may come from defaults, project overrides, or a config path. It does not state whether existing files would be overwritten, but the main side effects and purpose are transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause contributes useful information. The mention of operator-tunable behavior is a brief but valuable rationale for the tool's existence.

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 two-parameter tool with zero required parameters and no nested objects, the description is complete enough: it covers the main inspect action, the source taxonomy, and the eject action with its destination. It doesn't detail list/show return shapes, but the schema enum and 'for show/eject' note keep an agent adequately oriented.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains what eject does and clarifies the source categories for templates. The schema already defines the action enum, and the description complements it with real-world behavior.

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 action ('Inspect the prompt templates this project uses') and identifies the exact resource and scope, including where templates come from. It also names the eject behavior, which clearly differentiates this tool from the many ddflow siblings.

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 provides a clear use case: inspect prompt templates and where they originate, and use eject when the project wants to edit shipped templates as plain text. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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