Retrieve all defined lanes and the files assigned to each, so you can see how your folder's contents are organized into named groups.
Return the lanes and which file sits in which lane.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a non-mutating read and it discloses the shape of the result (lanes mapped to their files), but it says nothing about ordering, size/full-scan cost, or whether empty lanes appear.
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 short sentence with zero filler, and the returned content is front-loaded before any caveats (of which there are none).
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 covers the essential question of what is returned (lane membership per file). A note on ordering or volume would close the last gap, but an agent can invoke this correctly as written.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to add. The description's implied 'no filters' contract is consistent with the empty schema.
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 and resource ('Return the lanes') plus the payload content ('which file sits in which lane'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It is clearly distinct from the write-oriented siblings create_lane and move_to_lane, though the description never names them explicitly.
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 guidance on when to call this versus list_kinds, scan_workspace, or describe_file, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer that 'list every lane and its file' is an unfiltered inventory read from the wording alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.