scout_lane_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the return payload for both modes (prompt paragraph vs. fold of defects/highs/unsure/mean confidence/routes), states that refusals come back with a reason, and closes with "Touches no browser" to rule out side effects. It omits whether lane names must be unique or how malformed replies are handled, but the safety profile is unambiguous.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope condition ("For a run split across parallel agents") then split cleanly into without-`reply` and with-`reply` cases. The parenthetical enumerations of fold contents are dense but each item is informative. Slightly crowded phrasing keeps it off a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does for both modes including the refusal path. For a 2-parameter, single-purpose coordination tool that is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior (invalid lane, unparseable reply) is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: `reply` is "the text the lane handed back" and omitting it flips the tool into instruction mode, which is richer than the schema's own wording. `lane` gets no extra detail beyond the schema's "as used in its session".

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 gives a specific mechanism: with no `reply` it produces the instruction paragraph for a lane's prompt, and with `reply` it parses the lane's return and folds it into a one-line summary. That is a concrete verb+resource statement for a two-mode tool. It stops short of naming the sibling it should be chosen over (e.g. scout_lane_brief), so an agent must infer the boundary from context.

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 two branches are explicitly conditioned on the presence of `reply`, which is exactly the decision an agent needs to make when calling this tool. It also states the fold result is "to relay to the lane once", implying a single-use handoff. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative is given.

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