Check Kimi readiness (free)

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

The description extensively explains behavior beyond the annotations: it is free and makes no model call, fetches data LIVE from 'kimi app-server' (a read-only call), and details semantics for each rate_limit field including edge cases (`unknown`, `unavailable`, `blocked`). It also clarifies freshness flags (`is_stale`/`as_of`) and `home_unverified`. This is far beyond what the annotations provide.

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 tightly organized and front-loaded with the primary purpose and usage. Each subsequent sentence explains a distinct aspect of the output (rate_limit, blocked, freshness), and no redundant or filler content is present. The complexity of the tool justifies the length.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: setup checking, rate_limit interpretation, distinguishing critical `blocked` state, and freshness indicators. It is complete and actionable for an agent to decide when to invoke the tool and how to interpret results.

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 baseline is 4. Although the input schema is empty, the description provides substantial context about the output and behavior, which is more than sufficient. There are no parameter semantics to elaborate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Check that the kimi CLI is installed, authenticated, and a supported version, and report the resolved defaults.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource (kimi CLI setup), and further clarifies it is free and makes no model call. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kimi_capabilities and kimi_models, which serve different purposes.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Run it before your first paid call in a session to confirm setup, and again whenever a run fails with a setup error.' It also advises when to defer calls based on rate_limit states ('when limited/exhausted, prefer to defer non-urgent Kimi calls') and distinguishes actionable states like 'blocked'. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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