list_lanes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that read behavior and is silent on pagination, which is significant given the limit/offset/previous_page/text_offsets machinery in the schema.

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 front-loaded clause with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a seven-parameter tool; no sentence is wasted but none adds depth either.

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 seven-parameter list tool with nested objects and pagination cursors, a four-word description is thin. The output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, but the description omits any pagination or scoping context the agent needs.

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 only 43%, so the description is expected to compensate, but it mentions no parameters at all beyond implying a board is the target. The non-trivial pagination and detail-level parameters are left entirely to the 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 clear verb+resource: 'Read lanes of a board.' An agent can tell it retrieves lane objects scoped to a board. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as list_columns, list_subcolumns, or get_board.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description gives no signal about when lanes should be fetched versus columns or a full board retrieval.

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