kaiten_list_lanes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one addition, "Pagination is applied locally," is genuinely useful and non-obvious: it tells the agent that limit/offset are applied in-process rather than server-side, implying the full lane set is fetched each call. It still says nothing about ordering, auth requirements, or failure modes.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the pagination caveat; no filler or restated title. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the coverage gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the local-pagination note covers the most surprising behavior. However, for a tool whose parameters are wholly undocumented in schema, the description should at minimum explain board_id sourcing and what limit/offset mean under local pagination.

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 0%, so the schema names three parameters (board_id, limit, offset) with types and defaults but no semantic descriptions. The description only alludes to pagination, leaving board_id's provenance and the interaction between limit/offset and local pagination unexplained. Far more compensation is needed at 0% coverage.

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?

"List lanes on a board" gives a specific verb and resource, and names the parent entity (board) that scopes the result. It does not distinguish lanes from the sibling kaiten_list_columns, which an agent could easily confuse, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites beyond the required board_id, and no pointer to kaiten_list_boards for obtaining a board_id or to kaiten_list_columns as the adjacent alternative. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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