Дорожки доски

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Возвращает' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about permissions, pagination, ordering, or what a lane object contains; for a zero-annotation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the key disambiguating gloss. There is no padding, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is returned. It still leaves the agent guessing about lane contents, ordering, and how lanes relate to columns, which matters for a board-layout tool.

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 single parameter board_id is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) as 'ID доски', so the baseline applies. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond restating the resource it identifies.

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 ('Возвращает дорожки ... доски') and disambiguates the term by glossing lanes as horizontal rows, which separates it from the column-listing sibling. It does not name kaiten_list_columns explicitly, so differentiation requires the agent to reason about the gloss.

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 kaiten_list_columns, kaiten_get_board, or kaiten_list_boards. The only implied usage is 'you have a board_id and want its lanes', which the agent must infer.

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