kimi_sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the ordering (newest first), the inclusion of timed-out runs, and the fact that it returns working directories. It doesn't describe pagination or output format, but for a read-only list tool with no output schema, the added context is meaningful.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core behavior (list all sessions, newest first, with working directory), and then immediately provides the use case and the sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers scope, ordering, inclusion of timed-out runs, and how to use the result. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit output format, but since there is no output schema and the tool is simple, this is a small omission.

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 parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none to add. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 all kimi sessions with their working directory, newest first, and explicitly includes running, finished, and timed-out runs. It also distinguishes itself from kimi_running by noting that kimi_running is for turns still executing, which helps an agent understand the exact 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?

The description explicitly says to use this tool to recover an id for kimi_reply, and it names kimi_running as the alternative for turns still executing. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, which is strong for a list tool.

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