lane_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait – that the board surfaces "live contention warnings" – and implies a read-only pull, plus it hints at the returned fields (owner, state). It says nothing about freshness, size, pagination, or whether filtering changes the warning set, so coverage is partial.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the board is before the when-to-use cue. Every clause carries information: content, warning behavior, and timing. No filler or redundancy.

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 five-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers the what and the when but not the return shape (fields beyond owner/state), result ordering, or how contention warnings are represented. It is adequate to decide to call it, less adequate to predict or interpret the output.

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 all five parameters (q, mine, open, state, project) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, no interaction notes (e.g. whether mine and open are mutually exclusive), and no examples of the q grammar beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (the lane board) and states exactly what it exposes: ownership ("who owns what"), state ("in what state") and contention warnings. That is a concrete read operation an agent can recognize. It does not distinguish it from overlapping siblings such as team_status or team_availability, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives explicit trigger points: "Pull at task start and before picking up new work," which is actionable timing guidance tied to the workflow. It does not name alternatives or state when another sibling (e.g. team_availability, team_status) would be the better choice, so no exclusion guidance exists.

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