ddflow_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it declares the tool read-only, explains exit code 1 semantics (workflow does not hang together, with the concrete blocking consequence), and discloses the staleness behavior of the computed connection instructions. This goes well beyond a typical minimal disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: content enumeration, invocation timing with staleness caveat, and error semantics with read-only note. The core purpose is front-loaded. The first sentence is dense, but that enumeration is the tool's actual deliverable, so the length is justified.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: an agent knows exactly when to call it, what it returns, that it fails fast with exit 1, and when its content is stale. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the response contains (gate rules, commands, reviewers, provenance of values) and when results are current, which is useful context beyond the empty schema.

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 clear resource (the project's complete workflow rules: gates, commands, reviewers, completion rules, parallelism caps) with an implied retrieval verb, and positions it as the comprehensive 'one answer' overview. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it differs from, but its holistic scope clearly sets it apart from per-gate (ddflow_workflow_gate) and pipeline-editing (ddflow_workflow_pipeline) tools.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-call guidance: 'Call it before your first ddflow_claim in a session, and after any workflow change.' It also states when not to rely on it — after a mid-session pipeline edit, since connection instructions are computed once at server start — which is a clear exclusion and correctness caveat.

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