kaiten_chart_due_dates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does communicate read-only behavior through 'Get' and 'Returns,' and it discloses that the result is a completed tasks summary with due-date filtering. However, it does not mention permissions, output format, pagination, or whether any side effects exist, so transparency is only partial.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then gives the output nature, making efficient use of space.

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?

This is a 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description carries a heavy burden. It provides only a high-level 'completed tasks summary' as the return description and omits details about how the date filters combine, what fields the summary contains, and what the response structure looks like. The schema documents parameter names, but the description is not complete enough for confident invocation without further assumptions.

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 marginal value by connecting card and checklist item date ranges to the filtering behavior, but it does not explain parameter interactions, required combinations, or the purpose of the generic 'due_date' 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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Get due dates analysis for a space.' It also specifies the output category ('completed tasks summary') and the two filtering dimensions (card and checklist item due dates), which distinguishes it from sibling chart tools like kaiten_chart_summary or kaiten_chart_cfd.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no indication of how it differs from other chart endpoints. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the name and the single-sentence description.

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