wyea_snapshotMark all current comments as seen for a GitHub issue to track only new replies. Use after processing replies or when waiting without email alerts.
현재 댓글 전체를 기준(seen)으로 저장합니다. 새 댓글을 읽고 반영한 뒤, 또는 메일 없이 기다리기만 할 때 사용합니다. 상태 파일은 stateDir/issue-<번호>.json (Codex Wyea-Workflow.ps1 과 같은 형식).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue | Yes | GitHub 이슈 번호(비공개 레포 ) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the mutation (writing the seen baseline) and the exact state-file path/format (stateDir/issue-<number>.json, matching Codex Wyea-Workflow.ps1). It does not cover permissions, behavior if the issue is missing, or the return value.
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 compact sentences, front-loading the core action before usage and file details. Each sentence roughly earns its place, though the parenthetical about the file format is the least essential.
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 simple one-parameter tool the description covers purpose, usage, and the side effect of writing a state file. With no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about return values and failure/permission behavior, so it is adequate but not complete.
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 single 'issue' parameter is already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only a small corroboration by showing the issue number maps into the state-file filename ('issue-<번호>').
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+resource: saving the current full set of comments as the '(seen)' baseline. It clearly conveys what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts itself with siblings like wyea_check or wyea_wait, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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 two usage situations ('after reading and reflecting on new comments' or 'when waiting without mail'), which is implied-but-real guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this versus wyea_check/wyea_wait, leaving the routing decision partly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.