List Kimi models (free)

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses the data source (on-disk cache vs bundled fallback), that the fallback lacks effort data, that the real CLI/backend validate values, and that the payload is identical to kimi://models while not being fingerprint-stable. This is far more behavioral context than the annotation provides.

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 core statement is front-loaded and every sentence adds information, but the middle sentences are dense with caveats and parentheticals (cache source, fallback data, validation behavior). It is efficient but slightly more complex than necessary.

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 no parameters, an output schema present, and a readOnly annotation, the description covers all decision-relevant behavior: free/no call, sources, validation caveats, payload equivalence, and cacheability. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline is 4. The description still adds relevant semantic value by explaining how the returned slugs/effort values are meant to be used as `model` and `reasoning_effort` in other calls.

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 starts with a concrete verb and object: 'List Kimi model slugs you can pass as `model`' and specifies the output includes each model's advertised reasoning-effort set for `reasoning_effort`. This makes the tool's function unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like kimi_status or kimi_capabilities.

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 provides clear context: 'Free — no model call', 'Advisory discovery only', and warns not to cache by fingerprint. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of a 5.

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