kimi_list_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior or mention any side effects, error conditions, or response formats. It gives minimal transparency beyond the core action.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the main action. It avoids unnecessary detail and every word contributes meaning. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

As a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the main filter but omits behavior around the limit parameter and the return format. It is adequate for a basic understanding but lacks details that would fully complete the context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of the work_dir parameter ('filtered by working directory'), but never mentions the limit parameter, leaving it undocumented in both the schema and description. This is a significant gap for one of only two parameters.

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 lists local Kimi Code sessions and optionally filters by working directory. The verb 'list' is specific and the resource 'local Kimi Code sessions' is precise, differentiating it from sibling tools like kimi_status or kimi_run.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool (listing sessions) and mentions the optional filter, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It lacks exclusionary guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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