kaiten_chart_spectral

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well by explicitly stating this is asynchronous and returns a compute_job_id. It also gives the follow-up action of polling, which is critical for correct invocation. It does not mention authentication or side effects, but for a chart-building operation this is a minor gap.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the asynchronous polling instruction is included without 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?

Given the tool's complexity, the absence of an output schema, and lack of annotations, the description covers the most essential contextual fact: the operation is asynchronous and must be polled. It does not describe the final result format, but it correctly routes the agent to kaiten_get_compute_job for results, which is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents all 11 parameters, including the nested lane mapping examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the already-documented schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 tool builds a Spectral Chart for a space and shows cycle time distribution, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling chart tools like kaiten_chart_cycle_time, but the distinctive chart type name provides enough separation.

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 clearly explains the asynchronous workflow and directs the agent to poll with kaiten_get_compute_job, which is valuable operational guidance. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over sibling chart tools or provide any exclusion criteria.

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