enoch_lanes

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context, such as 'bounded' and 'lane-aware', but does not contradict annotations. A score of 3 reflects that annotations carry the burden and description adds little.

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 sentence, making it concise, but it is not front-loaded with important information. The phrasing is dense and unclear, sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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?

The description does not specify return values or behavior, and there is no output schema. Given the complexity of the domain (many sibling tools), the description is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about what information the tool provides.

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?

Parameter count is 0, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it also fails to explain what the tool outputs or how it is invoked. With no parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Bounded worker lane state and lane-aware next candidate' is vague and does not clearly state what the tool does. It reads like a cryptic title rather than a functional description, making it hard to distinguish from sibling tools without deeper domain knowledge.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description lacks context for when 'bounded worker lane state' should be accessed or how it differs from other lane-related tools like enoch_dispatch or enoch_queue_health.

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