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 mentions retrieving 'latest' status, implying it might fetch recent data, but fails to detail permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'session status' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with task execution systems.

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, straightforward sentence that efficiently states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, which is adequate. However, with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and complexity implied by terms like 'session status,' the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, usage context, and parameter meaning, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 description does not mention the 'task_id' parameter at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is undocumented. However, since there is only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the score is reduced to 3 because the description adds no semantic context beyond the schema's title, missing an opportunity to clarify the parameter's role or format.

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 states the tool's purpose as retrieving 'the latest task and session status for a task,' which is clear but somewhat vague. It specifies the resource (task/session status) and verb (get), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'task_get' or 'run_summary,' leaving ambiguity about its unique role.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'task_get' and 'run_summary,' the description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for its use, offering only a basic functional statement without comparative direction.

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