kanbn_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what kind of results it returns (full tasks vs. IDs), how the 'quiet' flag alters output, or any side effects. The verb 'Search' hints at a read operation, but this is not stated, leaving the agent to guess at critical behavioral details.

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 with no wasted words: it states the action, resource, mechanism, and a key scope qualifier. The parenthetical adds valuable differentiation without bloating the description. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool is complex: it has a nested filters object, an optional quiet flag, and no output schema. The description does not explain what the output looks like, how filters are combined, whether results are sorted, or how the quiet flag changes the response. For a search tool of this complexity, the description leaves too much to be inferred and is therefore incomplete.

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 parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the complex 'filters' object with its many keys. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the generic term 'filters', which matches the baseline for high schema coverage. It neither compensates nor harms parameter understanding.

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 states a specific action ('Search tasks on the board') and resource ('tasks'), and the parenthetical 'works across all columns' provides a meaningful scope qualifier that distinguishes it from column- or board-specific tools. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling lookup tools like kanbn_find_simple_tasks or kanbn_get_task, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'works across all columns' gives implicit context that this tool is appropriate when the search must span the entire board rather than a single column or status, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. It is adequate as an implied usage hint, not a clear routing instruction.

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