kaiten_chart_throughput_capacity

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the critical asynchronous behavior and the polling mechanism, but it omits other behavioral details such as job lifecycle, compute cost, or whether results are persisted.

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 sentences front-load the purpose, then state the metric, then provide the async workflow and polling instruction. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 covers the call lifecycle reasonably well for an asynchronous chart tool: what it builds, that it returns a job ID, and how to retrieve results. It lacks context about when to select this specific chart versus its siblings and does not describe the final result shape, which would be helpful given there is no output schema.

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 every parameter. The description adds only high-level meaning by referencing 'space' and 'delivery throughput', but does not clarify parameter relationships or expected values beyond the schema.

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 that the tool builds a Throughput Capacity Chart for a space and measures delivery throughput, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling chart tools like kaiten_chart_throughput_demand, which also relates to throughput metrics.

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 operational guidance: the call is asynchronous, returns a compute_job_id, and should be followed by polling via kaiten_get_compute_job. It does not, however, explain when to choose this chart over competing chart tools or any exclusions.

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