Inspect a phase's state, dependencies, lease, worktree path, and gate outcomes with evidence to verify work before completing the task.
Everything known about one phase or task: state, dependencies, declared globs, the lease and who holds it, the worktree path you can cd to, and every gate's outcome with its evidence. Use it to check your own work before calling ddflow_complete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Item id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It goes well beyond a vague 'show' by detailing exactly what the tool reveals, including the lease holder and worktree path, and implies a read-only inspection operation. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify state,' but the informational content and 'show' semantics make that strongly evident.
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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose, enumerates what it returns, and closes with an actionable use case. There is no redundant or filler content.
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 single-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description provides enough detail about the expected result categories and the calling context. It does not cover error cases or prerequisites, but the low complexity and rich content enumeration make the definition sufficiently 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?
The schema already documents the single parameter 'id' with 100% coverage. The description adds slight context by framing the item as 'one phase or task,' but does not materially expand on the meaning, format, or source of the id. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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 concrete action and resource: it shows everything known about one phase or task, and enumerates the specific categories of information returned (state, dependencies, globs, lease holder, worktree path, gate outcomes). This clearly distinguishes it from broader overview tools like ddflow_status or ddflow_workflow by scoping it to a single item.
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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use it to check your own work before calling ddflow_complete.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is clearly contextualized.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.