lore_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description goes well beyond by enumerating the returned payload (화수, 다음 화 번호, 등장인물, 세계 사실 수, 미해결 떡밥, 아크 진행, StoryProfile 상태, workingTree) and by disclosing the non-obvious empty-state behavior ('작품이 없으면 오류 대신 initialized=false를 돌려준다'). It also explains that workingTree signals manual edits, which is behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return contents, empty-state behavior, sibling routing, and the write precondition. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value semantics, and it does so by enumerating the fields returned and the initialized=false fallback. Combined with the routing and sync precondition, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and act on the result.

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 already documented in the schema, including the workId pattern and the project default. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 (조회/read) and resource (작품 전체 진행 요약) and immediately scopes it as read-only and Published-HEAD-based. It explicitly distinguishes itself from lore_workflow_status, lore_configure, and lore_*_status, so an agent can pick it apart from siblings 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 routing for three adjacent tools ('진행 중인 한 화의 단계는 lore_workflow_status, 설정 누락 점검은 lore_configure, 개별 계획 내용은 lore_*_status로 본다') plus a preconditioned follow-up action (call lore_sync before writing when workingTree is not clean). Both the selection condition and the next step are stated, not implied.

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