lore_workflow_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 adds real behavioral context beyond them: the concrete prose return shape {active, workflow, resume?}, that the manuscript body is excluded, the {active:false} no-workflow case, and the resume.runId handoff. It stops short of documenting pagination or the webtoon full-detail payload, keeping it at a strong 4.

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-loads the core action and then layers sibling-routing, return shapes, and lane behavior in short sentences. Dense but each sentence carries a distinct fact; slightly crowded but no filler.

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 carries the full return-value burden and does so: it gives the prose shape, the empty-workflow shape, the body-exclusion note, the webtoon stage semantics, and the resume handoff. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it 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 the schema already documents workId, project, lane, detail, and workflowId. The description adds lane-specific return semantics (webtoon returns status as stage) but no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, 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?

Names a specific verb (읽기 전용으로 조회) and resource (진행 중인 한 화/웹툰 장면 워크플로의 단계·시도 횟수·다음 행동·품질 결과), and explicitly distinguishes three sibling tools by name. An agent can tell it apart from lore_status and lore_workflow_history without opening a 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 the agent: overall work progress → lore_status, past events → lore_workflow_history, and waiting-for-model continuation → lore_resume via resume.runId. The when-to-use boundaries are stated rather than implied.

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