kanbn_find_missing_task_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Find' implies a read-only operation and the return shape is disclosed, but the description does not explicitly confirm there are no side effects, how missing files are detected, or what happens when no files are missing. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, the target resource, and the return format efficiently, with every word earning its place.

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 one-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and return shape. However, given a large sibling set with similar task-inspection tools, it would benefit from clarifying what 'indexed tasks' means or how this differs from orphaned-task and simple-task finders.

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 input schema already documents the single 'path' parameter as 'Path to the project root directory', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, 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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a precise resource ('indexed tasks whose file is missing'), and the output shape ('{task, column} entries'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from generic task-finding siblings by focusing on missing files.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to locate tasks that have lost their associated files, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like find_orphaned_tasks, find_tracked_tasks, or task_file_exists. No alternatives or exclusions are given.

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