topos_depgraph_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, but the description adds valuable behavioral disclosure beyond that: 'Never shells out and never mutates state.' It also explains the failure modes (missing, stale, load/schema failure), which is not captured in annotations and helps the agent interpret the tool's behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: what it does, how it distinguishes outcomes, and safety guarantees. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only status tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, failure modes, and next steps. It does not specify the exact return format, but given the simplicity and the 'what to do next' guidance, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, and each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('.gitnexus' availability and freshness), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on status rather than generation or assessment. The read-only scope and the distinction between missing, stale, and failure states give precise 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 implies usage: check this before trusting COMPOSABLE, and it tells the agent what to do next based on the state. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like topos_generate_depgraph, but the read-only nature and 'what to do next' provide clear contextual guidance.

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