kaiten_chart_throughput_demand

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. It does disclose the asynchronous nature, the compute_job_id return, and the polling mechanism, which is valuable. However, it does not state whether this operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or produces any side effects, which is a notable gap for a chart-building 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and the critical async workflow are stated upfront, and the polling instruction is a compact, high-value addition.

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 adequately covers the essential call-and-poll workflow. However, with 8 parameters and no output schema, the agent is left without context on what the chart data will look like, what 'incoming demand' means in terms of columns, or how the optional filters/grouping affect the result. It is sufficient for invocation but not fully complete.

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 8 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning (e.g., how group_by works or how date ranges interact), so the baseline 3 is 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 a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('Throughput Demand Chart for a space') and adds the metric it measures ('incoming demand'). It is reasonably distinguishable from the many chart siblings by name and stated metric, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from kaiten_chart_throughput_capacity.

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 follow-up usage ('Use kaiten_get_compute_job to poll for results'), which is genuinely useful. However, it does not explain when to choose this chart over other chart tools (cfd, control, throughput_capacity, etc.), leaving selection guidance to be inferred from the name and metric.

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