kaiten_chart_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that only cards reaching specified done columns are included and that it returns aggregated statistics, but it doesn't disclose whether the aggregation is count/velocity, whether the date range is based on completion date or entry to done, or whether pagination applies. It is not contradictory, but it leaves important behavioral details unspecified.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundancy given the tool's simple scope.

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 is adequately scoped for a chart-summary tool with four self-explanatory parameters, but it lacks details on the exact output shape and the definition of the date-range semantics (e.g., date when card entered done column vs. moved into it). Since there is no output schema, some guidance on what statistics come back would have improved completeness.

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%, with each parameter having at least a brief description in the schema. The main description adds the concept that 'done_columns' are exactly the columns whose reaching defines 'done', and that the date range is for a space. This is some added meaning but largely a restatement of the schema names and types.

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 action ('Get done-card summary'), the resource ('for a space within a date range'), and the scope ('statistics for cards that reached the specified done columns'). This clearly distinguishes it from the many other chart tools like kaiten_chart_lead_time 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?

The description clearly defines what kind of data this tool returns ('done-card summary', 'aggregated statistics'), making it distinguishable from siblings that provide activity or lead-time charts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over related chart tools or give exclusions, which would have made it a 5.

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