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 does well by explaining the response includes a 'board_hint' field that summarizes other active tasks in the same project, which is valuable behavioral context beyond just the retrieval operation. It also mentions the agent can use this hint to decide whether to call 'task_list()' for coordination, adding workflow context.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose. The second sentence provides important behavioral context about the response. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job. It explains the purpose and provides useful behavioral context about the board_hint field. However, it doesn't cover error cases, authentication requirements, or what happens when an invalid ID is provided, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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. The tool description mentions 'by ID' which implies the task_id parameter, but doesn't provide any additional semantic context about what format the ID should be, where to obtain it, or what happens when null is passed (the default). The description adds minimal value 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: 'Get a task by ID.' This is a specific verb+resource combination (get + task). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'task_list' or 'task_search' beyond the ID-based retrieval aspect.

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: when you need to retrieve a specific task by its ID. It also hints at when to use an alternative ('task_list()') based on the board_hint field content. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to other retrieval tools like 'task_search'.

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