ddflow_replay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that it writes a recovery kit to a directory (via 'out') and that 'verify' checks shas, but it does not reveal whether it modifies the log, requires special permissions, or has side effects beyond writing files. The safety profile is vague.

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 with the main purpose front-loaded. The first sentence is a long list but remains efficient. No filler words; every phrase adds value.

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?

The tool has two optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the core function and parameter meanings, but does not discuss prerequisites (e.g., existence of a log) or output format. Given the moderate complexity and schema coverage, it is fairly complete.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the purpose of the recovery kit and gives a rationale for the verify flag ('A reconstruction citing shas nobody can resolve is a narrative, not a record'). This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 verb (reconstruct) and resource (project's decision history) and enumerates the exact contents (operator prompts, decisions, research verdicts, lessons, queue shape). This clearly distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like ddflow_history or ddflow_prompts, which focus on subsets of this history.

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 context: 'This is what rebuilds the project if the code is lost.' This tells the agent when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions.

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