kaiten_chart_task_distribution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that this is an asynchronous operation, returns a compute_job_id, and requires polling for results. This is key behavior not visible in the schema, though it could add failure modes, permissions, or compute-job lifecycle details.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by the critical async behavior and polling tool. No filler or redundant detail.

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 an async chart operation with no output schema, the description names the response handle (compute_job_id) and the exact polling tool. It doesn't describe the final chart result shape or cancellation, but it gives enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

All six parameters are already documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no param-specific explanation beyond 'for a space' implicitly aligning with space_id.

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?

States a specific verb 'Build' + resource 'Task Distribution Chart' and scope 'for a space'; the second sentence clarifies what it shows ('how tasks are distributed across the board'). This distinguishes it from the many sibling chart tools by naming the specific chart type.

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?

Clearly identifies the intended use case and gives direct follow-up guidance: the operation is asynchronous and should be polled via kaiten_get_compute_job. It does not explicitly compare with alternative chart siblings, but the scenario is clear enough to route an agent.

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