kaiten_chart_control

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 this well by stating that the operation is asynchronous and returns a compute_job_id, which is critical for the agent to avoid expecting an immediate chart result. It could also explain poll failure or cancellation, but the core async behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, the output behavior is stated next, and the follow-up tool is explicitly named. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complex tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what it produces, the metric shown, and how to retrieve results asynchronously. The absence of detail about the final chart payload is mitigated by the clear 'cycle time per card' statement and the schema's full parameter coverage.

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 input schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable under the baseline. It does not confuse or mislead about any parameter.

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 that the tool builds a Control Chart for a specific space and shows cycle time per card. The verb 'Build' plus the resource 'Control Chart' give the agent a concrete idea of what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling kaiten_chart_cycle_time.

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 an explicit directive to use kaiten_get_compute_job to poll for results, and it warns that the operation is asynchronous. However, it provides no guidance on when to choose this chart tool over the many sibling chart tools, so the agent is left to infer selection based on the chart name.

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