kanbn_task_exists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool 'throws otherwise', which is a useful failure-mode signal, and 'Check' implies a read-only predicate. However, it does not specify the return value when the check succeeds, the exception type, or whether the operation has side effects.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key behavioral caveat ('throws otherwise') without redundancy.

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 predicate tool, the description is minimally viable: it explains the check and the failure mode. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should clarify what a successful call returns and what 'indexed' means in this Kanban context, so some completeness gap remains.

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 'path' and 'taskId'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('task file'), and adds the condition 'exists and is indexed', which distinguishes it from the sibling kanbn_task_file_exists. The term 'indexed' is not defined, which creates mild ambiguity, but the overall purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kanbn_task_file_exists or kanbn_get_task. The description implies a validation/precondition use case but never states it explicitly or names alternative tools.

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