list_lanes

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that the tool lists all lanes, implying a read operation, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects such as return format, pagination, or side effects. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but not enriched, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word contributes to the tool's definition, and there is no unnecessary verbosity. It is optimally structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the board context and clarifies that lanes are swimlanes/rows. Minor omissions like explicitly stating read-only behavior or describing the output are not critical given the simplicity of the operation.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (board_id) with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('List all lanes') and the resource ('lanes (swimlanes/rows) of a Kaiten board'), which is specific and unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_columns, but the term 'lanes' is distinct enough that an agent can infer the tool's purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_columns or list_boards. It does not state when this tool is appropriate, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must rely on the tool name and context to infer usage.

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