kimi_ask

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states stateless and text-only, but does not clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or how the tool behaves when parameters like context are used (e.g., switching to verify mode). The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loads key traits, but it omits necessary detail. While there is no redundancy, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, making it minimally adequate.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of several parameters (e.g., timeout_ms, include_thinking, max_output_tokens) or what the tool returns. This leaves the agent with insufficient context 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 only 50%, and the tool's description adds no information about any parameters. Three parameters (timeout_ms, include_thinking, max_output_tokens) lack schema descriptions and are not addressed in the description. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it is for 'stateless question or independent review' and emphasizes 'text only, no repo, no edits', which strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kimi_code (code-related) and kimi_sessions (session management). The purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. While it implies it is for stateless text queries, there is no mention of scenarios where other tools like kimi_code or kimi_tasks would be more appropriate.

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