kimi_models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it reads live from `kimi provider list --json`, 'Starts no task' (quick operation), and clarifies it is a cheap lookup rather than a full endpoint probe. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct value: purpose, data source, use case, and economic warning. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler or redundancy.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main needs: what it returns (list of models), when to call it, that it is read-only and cheap. It could mention result formatting or that the search filters by model id, but the schema handles that parameter, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

The schema description for the single `search` parameter is fully self-explanatory (100% coverage), specifying it as an optional substring filter with examples. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given the schema already covers it fully — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('models this kimi installation has configured'), making the operation unambiguous. It explicitly states it is for picking a `model` value for `kimi`/`kimi_reply`, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform replies.

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?

It directs the agent to use this tool to select a model for kimi/kimi_reply, which is a clear use case. It also implies when not to use it by noting it is the 'configured catalog, not a paid probe,' though it doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternative conditions beyond naming the reply tools.

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