mcp_kanban_query_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add a small nuance ('across the Kanban board' and 'cardId/taskId substring') but largely repeats the parameter schema. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any side effects, pagination, or default limits, which would be useful context for a query tool.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and enumerates criteria. It is efficient and not overly verbose, though it is long due to the number of criteria listed. It earns a high score for compactness without sacrificing clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the functional scope well. It explains the searchable fields and filter options but omits details like default result limits, sorting, or whether it returns only card IDs or full objects. These are minor gaps for a query tool and do not impede basic usage.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description lists the same criteria without adding new meaning or clarifying any ambiguous defaults (e.g., labelMatchMode default). It offers no value beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action (search and filter), a clear resource (cards and their checklist tasks/sub-tasks), and enumerates the criteria. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like mcp_kanban_card_manager (which likely handles CRUD) and mcp_kanban_list_labels (which focuses on label listing).

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 clearly implies its use as a query/filter tool across the board, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It is obvious from the verb and resource that this is for searching, not modifying, so an agent can infer its role among siblings, but explicit guidance would be stronger.

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