kaiten_chart_cycle_time

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is asynchronous, returns a compute_job_id, and requires polling with another tool. It also clarifies the measurement window (start to end column). It does not mention permissions or failure/cancellation behavior, but the key behavioral trait is well covered.

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?

Three short sentences, all useful. The main action is front-loaded, the metric definition is next, and the asynchronous polling note is concise. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description adequately explains the core purpose and the async workflow, and the schema covers all parameters. However, with 9 parameters, no output schema, and a large family of sibling chart tools, it would benefit from explaining what the computed chart contains and when this chart is the right choice. It is sufficient but not rich.

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. The description adds some semantic context for start_column and end_column by framing them as the cycle time boundary, but it does not meaningfully explain tags, card_types, group_by, or only_asap_cards beyond the schema. It neither hurts nor substantially enhances parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('Build a Cycle Time Chart for a space') and defines the core metric ('Measures time from start to end column'). This is more than a tautology. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling chart tools like kaiten_chart_lead_time, so it stops short of full 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 implies usage: when a cycle time chart for a space is needed, this tool builds it. It also gives important follow-up guidance by naming kaiten_get_compute_job for polling. But it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the many sibling chart tools or mention any exclusion conditions.

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