ddflow_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it describes the tool as 'Read' even though schema parameters imply writes and side effects (`render`, `cadence` recording a run, `pins` with regenerate/install, `install` adding a merge driver and hook). It discloses no permissions, destructive behavior, output format, or side effects, leaving the agent with an inaccurate or incomplete picture.

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 and front-loads the action mechanism without filler. It is dense and efficient, though the bracketed action list is cryptic enough that some added structure could improve readability without much length.

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?

This is a complex 41-parameter, 14-action dispatcher with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain action behavior, side effects, and return semantics. It provides only a terse action list and required-argument hints, which is far short of what an agent needs to invoke each action 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 41 parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful action-to-required-argument mapping such as `list(kind)` and `pins(document)`, but it does not explain most action-specific parameters or semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with 'Read the queue, history and reports' and then lists 14 action names, so the broad domain is identifiable. However, it does not explain what most actions actually do (e.g., 'cadence', 'pins', 'loops'), and the umbrella verb 'Read' is misleading for actions that write or install. It is a vague multi-action dispatcher rather than a precisely stated purpose.

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 tells the agent to set `action` and lists which arguments are required in brackets, but gives no guidance on when to choose one action over another or when to use this tool versus siblings like ddflow_show or ddflow_brief. Usage is only implied by the action names.

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