ddflow_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool calls a real endpoint, parses the verdict, records evidence, and handles three distinct failure cases by recording UNAVAILABLE and never passing. This goes well beyond a generic 'review this item' statement.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and keeps critical failure semantics in a compact second sentence. It is slightly repetitive ('record the result' and 'records the evidence'), but there is no filler or irrelevant detail.

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 description is nearly complete for invocation: it explains the tool's role, mechanism, and failure behavior, with all parameters documented in the schema. The main gap is that, since there is no output schema, it never states what a successful call returns or how the success verdict is surfaced, and it does not mention whether item state changes beyond recording.

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 the input schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond reinforcing that the reviewer needs an intent to catch disagreements, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('configured cross-family reviewer over an item's diff') and states the outcome: record the result. It hints at differentiation from agent-claimed critic gates but does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like ddflow_gate_run or ddflow_gate_record, so it stops short of a 5.

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 situational context: use this when the real configured reviewer should be invoked by ddflow and the evidence recorded, rather than claiming the gate yourself. It also warns that a missing reviewer or unreachable endpoint yields UNAVAILABLE, which helps an agent decide whether to call it, but it never explicitly names alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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