ddflow_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It thoroughly discloses what information the status answer includes and implies this is a read-only query through the word 'answer' and 'state'. It could go further by explicitly stating that it makes no changes, but the content coverage is strong.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core value ('state of the whole project in one answer') and packs in the meaningful categories; the second sentence anchors it to natural user queries.

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 tool is simple with no parameters, and the description covers the major dimensions of a project status report, including completion, in-flight ownership, blockers, effort metrics, and loops. It could be more complete by noting relationship to more granular sibling tools, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 tool takes no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds useful context about the content of the returned status, though parameter semantics are trivial here.

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 tool provides an overall project status, enumerating tasks done, in-flight work, blocked items, hours, commits, and loops/recovery. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ddflow_progress or ddflow_board, but the scope of 'whole project in one answer' is specific.

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 maps the tool to the questions 'what is the status of this project?' and 'what has been completed?', giving clear usage context. It does not name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, but the usage context is strong.

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