kimi_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions status checks and live probes but omits safety (e.g., non-destructive read), error behaviors, or rate limits. The probe implies a network request, but consequences (cost, side effects) are undisclosed.

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, front-loading the core purpose, then adding the optional probe. Every word is necessary and no fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fails to explain return structure (e.g., status fields, auth state, model). For a complex status tool with 8 siblings, it should suggest when to use this vs. kimi_cache_status or set expectations for output.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond repeating the schema's 'probe' behavior and default model; no new semantics for parameters like format constraints or edge cases.

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 checks Kimi CLI/API status, default model detection, and auth. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kimi_query or kimi_cache_status by focusing on overall health.

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 gives guidance on using probe_api for a live check but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The context of sibling tools helps but the description itself is limited.

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