kaiten_chart_cfd

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does disclose the most critical trait: the operation is asynchronous and returns a compute_job_id requiring polling via kaiten_get_compute_job. This tells the agent not to expect an immediate CFD result. It does not address mutation/read-only status, but for a chart-building operation the lack of destructive side effects is implied and the async warning is the key missing 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 exactly two sentences: one for purpose and one for the async workflow. It is front-loaded with the key action and ends with the actionable follow-up, with no filler 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?

For an asynchronous, 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: it names the input scope ('for a space'), the async behavior, the returned compute_job_id, and the polling tool. It does not explain the final result shape of the CFD, but the lack of an output schema is mitigated by the clear pointer to kaiten_get_compute_job. The duplicate cardTypes/card_types quirk is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; every parameter has a description in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema already documents each filter (tags, cardTypes, selectedLanes, etc.), including the alternative field name note for cardTypes. Thus it neither exceeds nor falls below the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('Cumulative Flow Diagram (CFD) for a space'), making the tool's core function immediately clear. It also notes the asynchronous nature and the returned compute_job_id, which further distinguishes it from the synchronous sibling chart tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the many kaiten_chart_* siblings, so differentiation rests on the name and the CFD concept.

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 gives a clear follow-up instruction: 'Use kaiten_get_compute_job to poll for results,' which tells the agent what to do after invoking this tool. It does not, however, provide any guidance on when to choose CFD over the other chart tools (cycle_time, lead_time, etc.) or when not to use it. The context 'for a space' is present but no alternatives 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.