kimi_list_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation and mentions a default limit (implied by the 'max sessions' parameter description). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, cost, or whether results are sorted or cached.

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?

Two short sentences: first explains what the tool does and what it returns, second explains its primary use case. No filler words.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential output fields and ties to a sibling. Missing details like sorting or page size limits, but given the simplicity, it is largely complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%; both parameters ('limit' and 'work_dir') have descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter meaning beyond listing output fields, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 verb ('List'), the resource ('Kimi Code sessions'), and the output fields ('titles, working directories, and timestamps'). It also immediately connects to a sibling tool use-case ('find session IDs for kimi_resume'), differentiating it from other analysis tools.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('find session IDs for kimi_resume'), which implies the context. It does not enumerate alternatives or exclusion cases, but siblings are distinct (analyze, query, verify, etc.), making the guidance clear enough.

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