kimi_verify

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it calls the Kimi Code API directly, requires an API key, and critically states 'Kimi sees ONLY the 'context' string. It has NO access to this session, the repository, prior messages, or any tools.' This properly sets expectations for the stateless, isolated verification.

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 well-structured: starts with core purpose, then usage guidelines, then critical behavioral warnings. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity and difficulty.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the response footer detection but doesn't detail the return structure. However, it covers input requirements, behavioral constraints, and detection markers. For a text-returning tool with 6 parameters (100% schema coverage), it is largely complete, though a brief note on expected response format would strengthen it.

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% (6 params described in input schema). The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the purpose of each parameter (e.g., 'context' must be self-contained, 'question' defaults to general correctness review, 'role' and 'model' are overrides). It provides practical guidance, but the schema already covers the basics.

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: 'Get an INDEPENDENT second opinion from Kimi Code ... acting as an external third-party verifier.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes it from sibling tools (like kimi_analyze, kimi_query) by emphasizing its verification role.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: 'cross-check your own work', 'confirm a fix', 'find bugs / edge cases / security issues', 'sanity-check a claim or plan', 'get a dissenting view before you commit'. It also emphasizes the importance of passing full context. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives among siblings, the usage context is clear.

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