List server capabilities (free)

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that no model call is made, that responses are cacheable via fingerprint, and that certain detail modes restate data the client already has. It also explains the fallback behavior for resource-blind clients and clarifies that parameter-contracts is a contract document, not a JSON Schema.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose, cost, and caching behavior. The detail-mode explanations are dense and information-rich, with each sentence adding a distinct fact. It could be tightened slightly, but the structure makes the complexity navigable.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover read-only safety, the description provides everything an agent needs to call this tool correctly: purpose, cost model, caching, detail-level tradeoffs, include_schemas behavior, and fallback rationale. No significant gap remains.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema: which tools get async_lifecycle, that 'full' restates existing data, and that include_schemas is an opt-in fallback sourced from kimi:// resources. This helps an agent reason about payload tradeoffs.

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: 'List this server's tools, tiers, and the result fingerprint.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools by emphasizing that it is free, caching-friendly, and returns capability metadata rather than status, models, or job operations.

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 gives strong usage context: it is free, makes no model call, and is designed for clients to cache by fingerprint. It also explains when to use different detail modes and when to pass include_schemas, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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