List Kimi models (free)

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses non-obvious behaviors: reading from an on-disk cache or bundled fallback, the source field indicating which, the fallback lacking effort data, and the output not being fingerprint-stable. These details are critical for an agent to avoid misusing the data.

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 dense but every sentence adds value, covering purpose, cache behavior, validation caveats, and stability. While slightly long, the structure is logical and front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly condensed without losing essential information.

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 a zero-parameter input schema, read-only annotation, and an output schema present, the description fully covers purpose, advisory nature, cache/fallback behavior, and stability warnings. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to safely and correctly invoke this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not elaborate on them. It does add conceptual meaning by explaining that the output contains model slugs and advertised reasoning-effort sets, which exceeds the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 a specific action ('List Kimi model slugs') and the resource scope (model slugs with reasoning-effort sets). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'Free — no model call' and the discovery-only nature, which separates it from tools like kimi_status or kimi_consult.

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 provides clear context: it is 'advisory discovery only' and notes that 'kimi exec validates the real slug', which implies this tool is not authoritative. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand its role.

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