ddflow_version_show

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and 'Reads only' is the one meaningful disclosure — it tells the agent this is a safe non-mutating inspection. However, it says nothing about failure modes (e.g., no reachable tags) or the effect of the optional parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with what is returned and stays dense without filler. The stacked parentheticals make it slightly packed, but nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does enumerate the returned fields (current, next, bump and why, release notes). Combined with 'Reads only' covering the missing annotations, it is nearly complete for a read-only inspection tool, lacking only error/edge-case context.

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 parameters (bump, line, as_agent) are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining how the computed bump is derived (Conventional Commits plus tags of finished items), which supports the `bump` parameter, but does not clarify `line` or `as_agent` semantics.

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 names the resource (version state) and enumerates precisely what it surfaces: current version, next version, computed bump with rationale, and release notes. It also defines the computation (highest `<tag_prefix>X.Y.Z` tag reachable from the release branch), which is more than a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling `ddflow_version_cut`, so it falls 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus the obvious alternative `ddflow_version_cut`, nor any stated prerequisites or workflow position. Usage is only inferable from the fact that it reports release-relevant state. No when/when-not conditions are given.

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