lore_story_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the two return shapes ({planned:false} vs {planned:true, spine(...)}) and the status enum values pending|active|rejected. It does not mention error behavior or path resolution edge cases, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: scope/read-only nature first, return contract second, sibling routing last. Everything is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description itself documents both possible return shapes and the nested spine fields, and the sibling disambiguation covers the remaining ambiguity. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so workId's pattern/limits and project's default (server run directory) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 조회) and resource (StorySpine), and explicitly names the two sibling tools it is not (lore_arc_status for arc planning, lore_status for overall work progress). An agent can distinguish it 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?

Explicitly routes adjacent questions to alternatives: arc planning goes to lore_arc_status and whole-work progress goes to lore_status. The condition selecting each alternative is stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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