kaiten_list_lanes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It only restates that the tool lists lanes; it does not mention pagination, ordering, authorization requirements, or whether archived/inactive lanes are included.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the scope. Every word contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter list operation, the invocation path is clear: supply board_id. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves return-value details and behavioral constraints unspecified, and it offers no sibling differentiation.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter board_id as 'Board ID', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond restating that lanes are on a board, so the baseline score applies.

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 clearly states the action ('list') and the resource ('lanes/swimlanes') scoped to a Kaiten board, so an agent can understand the tool's basic purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling list tools such as kaiten_list_columns or kaiten_list_subcolumns.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as listing columns, subcolumns, or workflows. With a very large sibling set, this lack of disambiguating context forces the agent to rely on the tool name alone.

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