kimi_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly signals that this is a non-codebase query tool (read-only, no side effects). It doesn't detail auth, rate limits, or response format, but the behavioral trait 'without codebase context' is a key disclosure. Adequate for a simple query tool.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. Critical constraint ('without codebase context') is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 query tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect: a natural language answer. It could mention that responses are text, but the context is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools for other tasks.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds overall context but doesn't elaborate on parameter behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no additional value for individual parameters.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Ask') and resource ('Kimi Code'), and crucially distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating 'without codebase context'. It lists concrete use cases (general programming questions, algorithm explanations, second opinion), leaving no ambiguity about 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?

Explicitly says when to use: for general programming questions without codebase context. While it doesn't list negative examples, the positive guidance is strong and implicitly excludes codebase-specific queries (handled by siblings like kimi_analyze). Clear context for selection.

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