Kagan - AI Orchestration Layer

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 mentions 'Rebase' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing commits, potential side effects like conflicts, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'rebase' means in this context, what the expected outcome is, potential risks, or how it differs from similar tools. More context is needed for safe and effective use.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'task_id', and the tool description doesn't mention parameters at all. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher than for multi-parameter tools. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, but the minimal parameter count mitigates the impact.

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 action ('Rebase') and target ('a task branch onto its current base branch'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'review_abort_rebase' or 'review_continue_rebase', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'review_abort_rebase' or 'review_continue_rebase', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for rebasing. The description only states what it does, not when it should be used.

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