kanbn_cross_board_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The verb 'Find' reasonably signals a non-mutating read operation)Skip; the criterion is stated. But it doesn't disclose return format, whether results are limited only to cross-board tasks by default when allTasks is false, or any behavior around uninitialized/empty boards.

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?

A single, focused sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the filtering criterion is immediately clear. This is appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool.

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 low-complexity tool with fully documented optional parameters nominated, the description covers the core behavior sufficiently. The main gap is that there is no output schema and no mention of what the returned task data looks like, but the phrase 'Find tasks' gives a reasonable expectation of a list of tasks.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds no param-specific meaning beyond the schema's own text, making the baseline score of 3 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 clearly identifies the action ('Find') and the resource/target ('tasks') along with a precise criterion ('appear on more than one board'). This gives an agent a concrete understanding of what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish it from similar sibling tools like kanbn_tasks_on_other_boards or kanbn_find_task_boards, so some differentiation is left to the tool name.

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 wording implies the usage scenario: use this when you need to identify tasks shared across multiple boards. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when NOT to use it or which sibling tool to prefer, such as kanbn_find_orphaned_tasks or kanbn_tasks_on_other_boards.

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