kanbn_find_orphaned_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Find' implies a read-only operation, and the parenthetical adds useful context, but the description does not explicitly confirm that no state is modified, what happens on invalid input, or what happens if no matching tasks are found.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key consequence in a parenthetical. It is concise, focused, and contains no filler or redundant schema information.

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?

The core query semantics are clear and the parameters are fully documented, but there is no output schema and the description does not state the return format, such as task IDs or references. For a simple lookup tool this is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, with 'path' already described as the project root directory and 'slug' as the board slug. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a precise verb and resource: find tasks that are only referenced by a single board, and adds the consequence that they would be orphaned if that board were deleted. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from related board-relationship tools.

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 parenthetical '(would orphan on its deletion)' implies the tool should be used when assessing the impact of deleting a board. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as kanbn_cross_board_tasks or kanbn_tasks_on_other_boards, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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