Kagan - AI Orchestration Layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool performs a 'reject' action with feedback, implying a mutation that changes task status, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the action is reversible, side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 that front-loads the core action ('reject') and includes key details ('review-ready task', 'with feedback'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter semantics, return values, and usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'feedback' as a parameter, which aligns with the input schema, but doesn't explain the semantics of 'task_id' or provide details on feedback format, length, or content expectations. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema, failing to fully address the coverage gap.

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 ('reject') and the target ('a review-ready task'), and specifies that feedback is provided. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'review_approve' or 'review_merge' by focusing on rejection. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what makes a task 'review-ready' or the resource type beyond 'task'.

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 minimal guidance by implying this tool is used for tasks in a 'review-ready' state, but it doesn't specify when to use it versus alternatives like 'review_abort_rebase' or 'task_update', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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