Continue Kimi session [experimental]

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

Annotations already declare the tool as non-read-only, open-world, and non-idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: session scoping per working directory (no ID needed), error condition when no prior session exists, and experimental/auth caveats. This goes beyond basic annotations and helps an agent understand prerequisites and side effects.

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 three sentences, front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence, and includes only essential details. No extraneous information or redundant restatement of the title.

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's moderate complexity (experimental, has prerequisites, multiple parameters) and the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the critical context: how to use it, what will happen if misused, and the experimental nature. It's sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining the session scoping mechanism, which clarifies the 'workspace' parameter's purpose and why no session ID is required. This enriches the schema without radically changing it.

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 resumes a prior Kimi session for the workspace via `kimi -c`. It distinguishes from siblings like kimi_ask (starting a new session) and kimi_status (checking status) by specifying the action and workspace scoping. The verb 'continue' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance by stating it errors if no prior kimi_ask was run, indicating when the tool is applicable. It also references the same experimental caveat and auth requirement as kimi_ask, framing the appropriate context. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like kimi_ask or kimi_status, so it falls just short of fully explicit.

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