kanbn_get_simple_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior: the tool throws if the task cannot be resolved, and it guarantees exactly one result. However, it does not disclose what 'resolve' means (exact match? case-insensitive? partial?), whether the task must be on a specific board, or what the return value looks like. The 'or throw' disclosure is valuable but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core behavior ('Resolve exactly one simple task by title') and immediately states the failure mode ('or throw'). Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler or repetition of 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?

For a simple lookup tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, the lack of annotations means the description should disclose more about the return value and matching semantics. The 'or throw' behavior is disclosed, but an agent cannot tell whether the result is a task object, a path, or a status message, nor whether the title match is exact or fuzzy. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a moderate gap rather than a severe one.

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 both parameters ('Path to the project root directory' and 'Title to match'). The description adds the semantic constraint that the title must resolve to exactly one task, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't add details like whether the title match is case-sensitive or whether the path is optional. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds only marginal semantic value.

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 ('Resolve'), a resource ('exactly one simple task'), and a matching criterion ('by title'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kanbn_get_task (which likely fetches by ID) and kanbn_find_simple_tasks (which likely returns multiple matches). The phrase 'or throw' adds a precise behavioral guarantee. It loses one point because it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative or elaborate on what 'simple task' means relative to other task types.

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 when to use this tool: when you need exactly one task by title and want an error if it doesn't resolve. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer kanbn_find_simple_tasks (for multiple/partial matches) or kanbn_get_task (for ID-based lookup), nor does it mention any prerequisites like the board needing to be initialized. The usage context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but the guidance is not explicit.

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