ddflow_session_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that secrets are redacted before touching disk, which is important security context. However, it does not disclose what happens on repeated calls, whether the operation is idempotent, or any side effects beyond recording. This is adequate but not rich.

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 three concise sentences, each adding distinct value: the primary purpose, the importance for reconstructability, and the security redaction plus usage frequency. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids any redundancy.

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 simple logging tool with 3 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, the importance, the security redaction, and the expected call frequency. It does not mention error handling or repeated call consequences, but these are minor gaps for such a tool.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (item, text, session). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond implying that 'text' contains the verbatim prompt. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the verb 'Record' and the resource 'the operator's prompt verbatim', which is specific and unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ddflow_prompts or ddflow_history, but its focus on verbatim recording of operator turns is distinctive enough.

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 explicitly states 'Call it once per operator turn', which is a clear when-to-use guideline. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the frequency instruction provides useful context for correct invocation.

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