kanbn_find_task_column

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the tool throws if the task doesn't exist or isn't indexed, which is important failure context. However, it does not describe the return format or explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded and the failure condition follows efficiently.

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 two-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the main behavior and key error conditions. The lack of an output schema means a return-value shape would be helpful, but 'find the column a task is in' sufficiently indicates the result. Minor gap: it doesn't specify what form the column identifier takes.

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 both 'path' and 'taskId' already described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already handles that responsibility, so the baseline score 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('the column a task is in'), and adds error behavior by mentioning throws. It doesn't explicitly contrast with closely related siblings like kanbn_find_task_boards, so differentiation relies partly on 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 intended use is implied by the purpose statement, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative recommendations. An agent must infer when to prefer this over similar lookup tools such as kanbn_find_task_boards or kanbn_get_task.

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