Kagan - AI Orchestration Layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context. It explains that labels like 'priority:high' auto-map to task properties, describes idempotency ('previously synced issues are skipped'), and mentions the import_label filtering. It doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, but provides solid operational 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, then key behavioral details, followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place—no redundant information. The Args section is clearly formatted and efficiently documents parameters.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (data synchronization with mapping logic), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameters thoroughly. Minor gaps include not mentioning authentication or error scenarios, but overall it provides strong contextual understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 4 parameters in the Args section. It provides examples for plugin ('github') and repo ('octocat/hello-world'), clarifies state options ('open', 'closed', or 'all'), and explains import_label's purpose ('Only sync issues with this label'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Sync external items from a plugin source into the active project. Imports issues from the specified repository as kagan tasks.' It specifies the verb (sync/import), resource (external items/issues), and transformation (into kagan tasks). It distinguishes from sibling tools like plugins_preflight (which lists plugins) and project_* tools (which manage projects).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: syncing external items from a plugin source. It explicitly mentions using plugins_preflight to list available plugins, which is helpful guidance. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives for similar operations among siblings.

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