deposition_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful trait: 'Does not expose secrets', which is a safety note. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any performance implications, or what the report contains beyond the generic phrase. The note is a positive, but coverage is minimal.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It avoids redundancy and every word adds value, including the secret-safety caveat. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and a key safety behavior. It could potentially elaborate on what 'safety configuration' includes or how the report is used in a workflow, but for a status query it is largely sufficient. The lack of output schema means the description should hint at the return value, which it does implicitly by stating what it reports.

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, so the schema already provides complete coverage (100%). The description does not need to add parameter details since none exist. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no deduction is warranted because there is nothing to describe.

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 verb 'Report' and a specific resource 'deposition backend and safety configuration'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like validate_deposition, build_file_manifest, etc., which focus on actions, whereas this one is a status query. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where it should be called, such as before validation or publication, nor does it state when not to use it. The description simply describes the function without contextualizing its role among siblings.

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