ddflow_review_triage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantive work: it discloses the counterintuitive behavior that 'the gate stays failed' and that a review reporting findings 'is not re-recorded as passed,' plus that the log records each finding's fate. It omits permission/idempotency details, but the side-effect disclosure is genuinely valuable.

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-loads the action and the two verdict paths in the first sentence, then adds the non-obvious gate behavior. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical decision reference is a minor tack-on rather than waste.

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 6-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, this covers the important pieces: verdict semantics, probe requirements, finding numbering, and the key consequence that the gate remains failed. It could say more about what triaging all findings constitutes or the call's return, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: probe is defined as 'the run that shows it false' for refuted and 'the fix or test that answers it' for confirmed, and finding is tied to the review's printed #N. Only the id/gate/as_agent params get no extra description text.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: 'Record your triage of ONE finding of an item's recorded ddflow review,' scoping it to a single finding and naming the two outcomes (refuted/confirmed). This distinguishes it from the sibling ddflow_review that produces the findings, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when to call it: after a review has printed findings, you resolve one finding as refuted or confirmed, and it clarifies that the finding number is the #N the review printed. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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