Direct Kimi control

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool operates without bridge sandbox, path, permission, environment, timeout, or session-binding restrictions, which is a significant behavioral trait (direct and unrestricted). However, it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, or how these bypassed restrictions might impact the system.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core function and the key restriction-bypassing aspect efficiently, though it sacrifices necessary detail for conciseness.

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 (16 parameters, multiple action enums, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the actions, parameters, behavior, or return values, making it inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about any of the 16 parameters. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving all parameters semantically unexplained.

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 states the tool directly controls the installed Kimi ACP/CLI, which identifies the resource and that it bypasses restrictions. However, 'control' is a broad verb and does not specify the specific actions (prompt, status, cancel, etc.) available through the schema, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what it does and the restrictions it bypasses, without any context for appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.

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