Fetch and delete job result (free)

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

The prose is extremely transparent: deletion conditions, ordering relative to the response, TTL retention on failed removal, and non-done behavior are all described. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint=false while the description says the tool 'deletes the stored record' and 'removes completed job state.' This is a direct contradiction, so the dimension must be scored 1 per the rubric.

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 information-dense; every sentence contributes a distinct operational fact. It front-loads the core purpose and then uses a tight paragraph for deletion semantics, making the structure appropriate for the behavioral 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?

Given the output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, the description covers all the remaining behavioral context an agent needs: when deletion happens, what is retained on incompatible/corrupt results, what happens if removal fails, and that non-done jobs are untouched. Nothing material is missing.

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 already documents all three parameters, including the detail enum's summary/full semantics and job_id provenance, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond a cross-reference to kimi_job_result for detail; it does not need to compensate, so baseline 3 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-resource pair: 'Fetch a finished background Kimi job's result and delete the stored record.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling kimi_job_result by emphasizing deletion and one-shot consumption, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 states when to use it ('Use only when you no longer need to poll or re-read the job') and what it does not do ('Non-done jobs are not deleted'). It names the analogous envelope of kimi_job_result and clarifies the free/no-model-call behavior, giving clear selection context among siblings.

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