lore_profile_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so 'read-only' is partly redundant. The description earns its keep by disclosing the actual response behavior: {profiled:false} when absent, and {profiled:true, profile(status: pending|active|rejected, designReview included), language, length} when present. No output schema exists, so this return-shape disclosure is genuinely additive.

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?

Four tight sentences with zero filler: purpose and read-only scope first, return shape second, usage condition third, sibling routing last. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 compensates by spelling out both return branches including the status enum and designReview inclusion. Combined with the explicit sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to select and 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 description coverage is 100%, with both workId and project documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, defaulting, or path semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 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 and resource: read-only lookup of StoryProfile only ('StoryProfile만 읽기 전용으로 조회한다'). It distinguishes itself from other status tools by naming lore_status and lore_configure as the tools for other concerns, so an agent can tell them apart 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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('새 작품을 시작하기 전에 프로필이 필요한지 판단할 때') and routes to the correct alternatives with their conditions: lore_status for overall work progress, lore_configure for missing-config checks. Both the when and the when-not are present.

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