ddflow_research_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral constraint that CONFIRMED/REFUTED require a probe and that a verdict without a probe is an opinion, plus the value of REFUTED entries. It does not mention side effects, errors, or the nature of the saved record, but the critical rule is surfaced.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and the most important rule (probe requirement) is stated immediately after. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the critical business rule but leaves the rest to schema descriptions. It adequately orients the agent on the verdict/probe requirement and the purpose, but does not guide on how to populate optional fields or what the result of saving is. This is a moderate level of completeness given the complexity.

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 each parameter is documented. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying verdict to probe and emphasizing the importance of REFUTED, which is not present in the field descriptions. This adds genuine value but does not extensively elaborate on other parameters.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Record a research finding.' It specifies the exact domain and implies a distinct function from siblings like ddflow_lesson_add or ddflow_decision_add, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The added detail about verdict and probe reinforces the tool's unique role.

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 implies usage: when you have a research finding to record. It provides conditional guidance on verdict values and the mandatory probe for CONFIRMED/REFUTED, which are effectively usage rules. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some inference required.

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