List Lanes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that lanes are read-only in the Favro API, cannot be created/renamed/deleted, and that a board without lanes returns an empty list. It omits auth requirements and pagination, keeping it just short of full behavioral coverage.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then behavior, then the practical lane_id linkage. 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 simple one-optional-parameter read tool with a full output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, read-only behavior, edge case (empty list), and the return-value linkage to other tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single `board` parameter is already documented as accepting widget_common_id, name, or ID with a current-board default. The description adds no additional meaning about that parameter, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List the lanes (swimlanes) on a board') and clarifies the resource with a synonym. It is easily distinguished from sibling list tools such as list_columns and list_cards.

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 concrete downstream usage: take the returned lane_id and pass it to create_card or update_card to place a card in a lane. It does not need to name alternatives since no sibling lists lanes, but it stops short of stating prerequisites or exclusions explicitly.

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