execute_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: it excludes thinking by default to save tokens, returns immediately regardless of the wait parameter, and communicates via REST API. It lacks details on error handling or side effects, but covers the main behavioral traits.

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 concise with four front-loaded sentences. Each sentence adds meaningful information: purpose, communication method, default behavior, and usage tip for thinking content. No waste.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at the return value, but it does not. It also does not explain error scenarios. While it covers core functionality and polling guidance, it lacks completeness for a tool with 8 parameters and 2 required fields.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining default behavior (exclude thinking) and giving a use-case for include_thinking (when replies are vague), going beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: sending a prompt to a target session and waiting for a reply. It specifies the communication method (Kimi Server REST API) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like poll_session by noting that it returns immediately due to MCP timeout.

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 provides context for when to include thinking content (when replies are vague) and explains the deprecated wait parameter, advising to use poll_session for progress. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list all alternatives.

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