lore_snapshot_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new context: snapshots are auto-created per commit under .vibelore/snapshots/<화>/ and are replaced when the same episode is re-committed. It also discloses the return payload shape, which matters since no output schema exists.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by storage semantics, return shape, and the use case. Every sentence carries information, though the snapshot-storage sentence is slightly more detail than strictly needed to call the tool.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return shape ({snapshots:[화 번호 오름차순]}, no timestamps) and the pre-rollback use case. Nothing required for correct invocation is absent.

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% and both parameters (workId, project) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, default, or path-resolution detail beyond that, so the 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 (읽기 전용으로 조회한다) and resource (lore_rollback으로 되돌아갈 수 있는 화 번호 목록), and names the sibling tool it complements. An agent can separate it from lore_rollback (the mutating counterpart) and lore_status without opening either 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 an explicit trigger: use it before rollback to verify the target episode exists, which implicitly routes the agent to lore_rollback for the actual mutation. It does not state any when-not condition or contrast with the broader lore_status, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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