lore_writer_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the exact branching of the response on whether a WriterSkill exists, the pending|active|rejected status domain, and the presence of candidate/addition-audition data. It stops short of describing failure or empty-candidate cases.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the read-only nature, the two return branches, the usage trigger, and sibling routing all appear in a few dense sentences with no filler. The return-shape clause is notation-heavy but each element carries 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?

There is no output schema, so the description is right to encode the return shape itself, and it does so at a useful level of detail. Combined with 100% schema coverage on the two inputs and full annotation coverage, the definition is nearly self-sufficient; only error/empty edge cases are unaddressed.

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% — both workId (pattern, length, single-work-per-directory) and project (absolute path, defaults to server CWD) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 and resource (read-only query of WriterSkill) and goes further by spelling out the two possible return shapes ({planned:false} vs {planned:true, skill(status, candidates, audition prose/scores)}). An agent can distinguish it from lore_writer_decide, lore_writer_skill, and lore_status 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 gives the trigger condition ('사용자에게 오디션 결과를 보여 줄 때 쓴다') and routes to alternatives for adjacent needs: lore_style_anchor for style anchors and lore_status for overall work progress. It does not, however, name lore_writer_decide as the write counterpart of this read, nor state a when-not condition.

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