List Operations board lanes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior: the worst-first ranking order (human-blocked, red, amber, unknown, green), the returned fields, and the 'standing brief' framing, which is valuable context beyond the 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?

Front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the Operations board...') before the behavioral detail and parameter guidance. The 'pull a chip from the Jobs board' analogy is slightly colorful but clarifying; overall tight with little waste.

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, but the description enumerates returned fields and ranking, and explains the key filter flags, making it complete enough to invoke correctly. Minor gaps remain around pagination (limit default/max) which the schema carries.

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?

At 60% schema coverage the description compensates well: it explains what needs_attention filters to, how group scopes, and that include_induction should be used once per session for standing rules, plus flags agent_id as required. It adds meaning beyond the schema descriptions, though 'limit' and the exact group values remain schema-only.

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 ('Returns the Operations board: one lane per function in UnClick') and enumerates the returned fields (traffic light, priority, owners, waiting-on-operator). The agent can distinguish this from the Jobs board and lane-mutation siblings like claim_lane/update_lane.

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?

Gives explicit usage context ('when nothing is on fire, pull a lane from here') and contrasts with the Jobs board, plus prescribes when to pass each optional flag (needs_attention for unsettled, include_induction once per session). It doesn't name a specific sibling tool as the alternative, keeping it just below a 5.

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