Kimi bridge diagnostics

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: 'spends no quota,' 'EXPERIMENTAL,' expected auth row prior to login, and backend unverified. These are behavioral traits not captured by readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line summary. The subsequent paragraph is detailed but each sentence adds necessary caveats or specifics. Slightly verbose with backticks and examples, but overall efficient.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations, the description provides complete context: purpose, cost (no quota), experimental status, expected caveats, and specific checks performed. No significant gaps.

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?

Tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but none are needed; baseline 4 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report diagnostics for the Kimi bridge setup'. It enumerates concrete checks (version, newer release, kimi binary, provider, data location) and distinguishes it from sibling status tools by referencing antigravity_status's update notice.

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 implies use when checking bridge setup, notes 'spends no quota' as a benefit, and warns the backend is unverified. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of kimi_ask/kimi_continue or when not to use it.

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