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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the purpose but doesn't add any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens if the task doesn't exist, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.

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, clear sentence that gets straight to the point with no unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without any fluff or 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?

Given that there's an output schema (which likely defines the return value), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with 1 parameter and no annotations, the description is minimal and lacks context about usage, parameters, or behavior. It's adequate for a simple check but has clear gaps in guiding an agent fully.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't mention the 'task_id' parameter at all, failing to add any meaning beyond the schema. It should explain what a 'task_id' is or where to get it, but it doesn't compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Check whether') and the target ('a task has an interactive session'), which is specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'run_get' or 'run_summary', which might also provide run-related information, so it lacks explicit 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain if this is for checking session existence before other operations like 'run_start' or 'run_detach', or how it differs from 'run_get' which might return more details. No context or exclusions are mentioned.

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