kimi_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states no quota consumption and specifies the return structure. This gives a fairly good behavioral picture without contradictions.

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 two short sentences: the first announces the purpose, the second adds behavioral context and return structure. No wasted words.

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 explicitly provides the return structure, which is helpful for programmatic parsing. However, it does not explain the fields 'label, ok, detail' in detail. Overall sufficient for a zero-parameter status tool.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for zero parameters. The description adds no parameter info since none exist.

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 it checks subprocess and handshake status and active session count. It is specific about what it does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'kimi_sessions'.

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 mentions it does not consume quota, implying safe use, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'kimi_sessions'. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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