ai_search_kimi_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates that this tool polls for results of an asynchronous task, which is a read-like operation. However, it does not cover what happens if the task fails, is still running, or if the taskId is invalid. It also doesn't state whether results are returned immediately or can also be polled before timeout. With no annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate for the minimal but necessary behavioral context.

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 short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: state what the tool does, then specify when to use it. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no enums, no nested objects) and has an output schema (so return values need not be explained in description), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose and usage condition perfectly. The only gap is not explaining what happens if the task isn't ready, but the implied workflow (wait for timeout, then poll) suggests the expected behavior. A score of 4 reflects this minor 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 input schema has only one parameter (task_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the baseline is lowered. The description does not explicitly explain the parameter, but the usage guideline implies task_id is the identifier returned by ai_search_kimi. This provides context beyond the bare schema, which just marks it as required string. However, adding a brief note like 'task_id: the task identifier returned by the search tool' would be ideal.

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 purpose: '查询 Kimi 搜索任务结果' (query Kimi search task results). It also specifies the connection to the sibling tool 'ai_search_kimi' and the condition for use (when it times out and returns a taskId). This distinguishes it from other result query tools like 'ai_search_doubao_result' and 'ai_search_deepseek_result' by naming the specific platform (Kimi).

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 provides explicit usage guidance: '仅在 ai_search_kimi 超时返回 taskId 后使用' (only use after ai_search_kimi times out and returns a taskId). This clearly states when to use this tool and implies when not to (before the task completes or if no timeout). It effectively distinguishes a specific workflow from alternative approaches.

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