kaiten_chart_lead_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the most important behavior: the operation is asynchronous and returns a compute_job_id rather than a direct chart result. It also notes the Control Chart engine relationship and the required polling step. It does not mention side effects or auth/rate limits, but the async contract is the key behavioral disclosure for this tool.

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, front-loading the action and then giving the essential engine and async/polling context. 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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key non-schema knowledge: it is async, returns a compute job ID, and names the exact sibling to call for polling. It does not describe what the final job result will look like, but the chart type makes that largely inferable and the schema handles parameter detail.

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, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. All 11 parameters are described in the schema, including examples for the nested lane mappings, so the agent has enough information to populate them.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build a Lead Time Chart for a space,' making it clear this tool constructs that chart. It references the Control Chart as a close sibling, which helps distinguish it within the chart family, though it does not explicitly contrast it with other chart tools.

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 clear context: use it to build a lead-time chart for a space, and it explicitly points to kaiten_get_compute_job for polling, which is the essential follow-up workflow. It does not state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives such as cycle-time or control charts, so exclusion guidance is missing.

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