kimi_send

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructiveHint=truehare, and the description adds crucial behavioral details: it returns immediately, the reaction surfaces in a separate pending reply call, and a follow_up is queued without awaiting its result. The note about the first result envelope further clarifies the async interaction model.

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 compact and information-dense: each sentence adds distinct value—reachability, command semantics, delivery timing, and caveats about result envelopes. There is no wasted wording.

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 100% schema coverage and annotations, the description still supplies essential contextual details: immediate return behavior, relationship to the waiting kimi_reply call, and the caveat about follow_up results not being awaited. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool.

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 100%, with each parameter already described in detail, including the command enum and the message requirement rules. The description reinforces the relationship between commands and turn behavior but doesn't substantially extend the parameter-level semantics already provided.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Deliver') and resource ('a kimi turn that is executing right now'), clearly distinguishing this from kimi_reply, which is for finished sessions. It also clarifies transport constraints ('acp' vs 'print') that prevent misuse.

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 and when-not-to-use guidance: only for currently executing turns, not for 'print' transport or finished sessions. It names kimi_reply as the correct alternative for completed turns and points to kimi_running for finding reachable sessions.

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