List work lanes with codes, names, last handoff times, and freshness so you can choose a code for resume or handoff and keep session continuity aligned to its lane.
List this account's work lanes (code, name, last handoff time, freshness) — pick one of these codes to pass to resume/handoff so a session's continuity follows its own work lane.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses the returned fields (code, name, last handoff time, freshness), which is meaningful behavioral context since there's no output schema. It doesn't cover pagination, auth, or rate limits, but for a zero-param read-only list those are minor.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource and then explains the payoff. No wasted words; every clause 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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields and the reason to call it, which is exactly what an agent needs. Nothing material 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline is 4. The description adds the relevant concept of a lane 'code' that is produced here and consumed elsewhere.
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 (List) and resource (this account's work lanes) and even enumerates the returned fields (code, name, last handoff time, freshness). It distinguishes itself from siblings resume/handoff by explaining how the codes it returns are consumed by them.
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?
Clearly states the downstream use: pick a code to pass to resume/handoff so continuity follows its own work lane. This tells the agent when the tool is relevant, though it doesn't state explicit when-not conditions or compare against other listing tools like list_artifacts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.