lore_arc_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description usefully adds the two possible response shapes and the null-currentEpisode signal. It does not, however, discuss failure modes such as a missing workId target.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the usage trigger, then the return shape. Dense but every sentence carries information, especially since there is no output schema to describe return values.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly documents the return object and the null-currentEpisode handoff to lore_arc_plan. Coverage is strong for a read-only status tool; minor gaps remain around error/edge cases.

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% with only two parameters, and the schema already documents workId format and project semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (read-only query) and resource (current arc plan), and explicitly names the sibling lore_arc_plan as the follow-up when currentEpisode is null. An agent can distinguish it from lore_arc_plan/lore_arc_decide without opening any schema.

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-use (call first on receiving a writing request to check for an active arc) and a conditional routing rule (if currentEpisode is null, lore_arc_plan is needed). Both the trigger and the alternative are stated, not inferred.

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