Claude Code 상태 표시줄 설정

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that settings are modified, existing statusLine entries are preserved, only dotbugi-added lines are removed on disable, other settings are untouched, and user approval is required. It also explains the confirmToken fallback for clients without a confirmation window.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and then adds only relevant constraints: preservation, refresh interval, approval flow, disable restoration, Desktop limitation, and token fallback. Every sentence 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?

For a destructive, idempotent configuration mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral details an agent needs: what changes, what is preserved, approval requirements, restoration behavior, and the token fallback. Nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds useful semantics for confirmToken as a one-time token returned by the first call and usable only after user consent. It also reinforces action behavior, though it does not add much beyond the schema's own enum descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: enabling or disabling a statusLine entry in Claude Code's ~/.claude/settings.json. It clearly scopes the behavior to STT lecture progress display and distinguishes enable from disable without requiring the 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?

It gives clear operational guidance for enable vs disable, including preserving an existing status line, restoring original state on disable, and the Claude Desktop limitation. It does not name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not-with-alternatives guidance.

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