kimi_running

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavioral constraint that only acp-transport runs are reachable and that 'print' runs cannot be accessed mid-run, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe the return format or potential pagination, though with annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise, with four sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core purpose and key information fields, the second clarifies scope and exclusions, and the third routes to the appropriate sibling. No wasted words.

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?

Though the tool has no output schema, the description lists what information the results contain (session id, working directory, elapsed time, messages). Combined with annotations clarifying read-only and idempotent behavior, and the clear use case and exclusions, the description is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 tool has zero parameterschen and schema description coverage is 100% (the schema is empty). With no parameters to document, the description naturally carries no parameter burden. The tool's output is well described, so this dimension is not applicable and a high score is given.

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 lists currently running kimi turns, with specific details (session id, working directory, elapsed time, messages). It distinguishes from siblings by noting only acp-transport runs appear and that 'print' runs are unreachable mid-run, and points to kimi_sessions for past sessions. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for current, reachable runs) and when not to ('print' runs are unreachable; for past sessions use kimi_sessions). The alternative (kimi_sessions) is named, providing clear routing guidance.

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