kimi_resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral risk—concurrent writers—that is not derivable from the schema or parameter names. It does not mention permissions or return values, but the race condition warning is highly valuable.

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 only two sentences. The first states the core action, and the second adds a crucial caveat. Every word earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to obtain session_id, what prompt or work_dir should be, or how timeout_seconds behaves. The warning is helpful but leaves major gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description mentions none of the four parameters (session_id, prompt, work_dir, timeout_seconds). It provides no additional meaning beyond the parameter names themselves, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states 'Resume a Kimi Code session' with a clear verb and resource, and the 'Kimi Code' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like agents_resume. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.

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?

It explicitly says 'Do not resume a session that is still open in an interactive TUI' and gives the rationale ('two writers can race on the same session'). This is an actionable when-not guideline, though it does not name alternative tools.

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