kimi_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the default model and the lack of codebase context, but does not discuss idempotency, authentication, rate limits, or error handling. For a read-only query tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and then providing usage guidance. Every sentence is meaningful and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 5 parameters are well-documented in the schema and the tool is a straightforward query, the description is largely complete. It could be enhanced by mentioning the response format, but this is not critical for a simple question-answering 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., default model, examples). Therefore, no extra value is contributed.

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 ('Ask'), the resource ('Kimi Code'), and the key differentiator ('without codebase context'). It also lists specific use cases (general programming questions, algorithm explanations, second opinions), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that may involve codebase context.

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 the tool: 'Use for general programming questions, algorithm explanations, or getting a second opinion.' It also implies when not to use it by specifying 'without codebase context,' indicating that for codebase-specific queries, other tools should be preferred.

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