scout_lane_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a helpful trait ('Touches no browser') and explains the two output behaviors, including the failure case ('reason it was refused'). However, it does not explicitly state whether it has any state-changing side effects or mention permissions/rate limits, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with no annotations.

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 information-dense and well-structured: it opens with the run context, then branches into the two modes with concrete outcomes, and closes with a safety note. Every sentence earns its place, though the density requires careful reading. It is slightly long but not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: it details the paragraph content for the no-reply mode and the one-line fold or refusal reason for the reply mode. It also explains the input contract for the lane. Missing are details like pagination or error semantics, but for a tool of this complexity it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly linking the two parameters: omitting `reply` yields the instruction, while providing it triggers parsing. This conditional relationship is not obvious from the schema alone, so the description enhances parameter understanding.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair: it returns a lane prompt paragraph when `reply` is omitted and parses a lane's reply when `reply` is provided. The opening context 'For a run split across parallel agents (lanes)' clearly frames this as a lane-specific tool, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scout_report or scout_lane_brief.

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 description gives explicit usage conditions: use it when a run is split across lanes, and it precisely states the two modes based on whether `reply` is omitted or provided. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can decide when to invoke this tool over siblings.

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