kaiten_list_lanes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — pagination is applied locally rather than server-side — which affects how limit/offset behave and is not derivable from annotations.

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 purpose and with zero filler. It is efficient, though the size is arguably too lean for a tool whose parameters are entirely undocumented.

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?

This is a low-complexity read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, so return values and safety need not be described. The remaining gaps — an unexplained board_id and no guidance on the local pagination trade-off (fetch-all cost, when to set limit/offset) — leave it only minimally adequate.

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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it: board_id, limit and offset are never explained. The 'pagination applied locally' note indirectly hints at limit/offset semantics but gives no ranges, defaults, or meaning for board_id.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List lanes on a board'), which is unambiguous and matches the tool name. It does not, however, relate itself to siblings like kaiten_list_columns or kaiten_get_board, so the agent must infer the board-scoped hierarchy on its own.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite beyond the implicit need for a board_id. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the required parameter.

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