List server capabilities (free)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description goes well beyond: it states this is free, makes no model call, supports caching via fingerprint, and reveals that the default payload omits schemas and points to kimi:// resources. It also specifies exactly what each detail mode returns, with no contradiction to annotations.

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 the core purpose, then structured naturally by detail modes and include_schemas. Every sentence earns its place — no fluff or repetition — and the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers cost, cacheability, all mode differences, and the resource-blind fallback. With an output schema present and detailed parameter schemas, the agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its response. No significant gaps remain.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, the description adds meaningful value: it explains that detail='full' restates information the client already holds, and that 'parameter-contracts' is a contract document, not JSON Schema. This nuanced guidance helps the agent choose wisely.

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 'List this server's tools, tiers, and the result fingerprint' — a specific verb and resource that immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like kimi_status or kimi_models. It adds unique scoping (tiers, fingerprint) and notes 'Free — no model call', reinforcing its identity.

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 explains when to use each detail mode: summary for facts tools/list does not carry, full when you want to restate what you already hold, contracts when you need only schemas/fingerprint. It also positions include_schemas as a fallback for resource-blind clients, giving clear decision guidance.

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