Check Kimi Bridge Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable operational transparency beyond those: no session creation, no AgentSwarm execution, no credential exposure, no workspace modification, and returns health/auth status plus safe backend metadata and diagnostics. This materially enriches the behavioral contract without contradicting annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage timing, return contents, and explicit negative side effects. The core function is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers why and when to call it, what it returns, and what it will not do. It names the relevant diagnostic domains (connectivity, authentication, backend, runtime) and is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 empty schema is complete and the description does not need to document any parameter behavior. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 immediately states the specific verb and resource: 'Check bridge and private Kimi-runtime readiness' with a clear scope limiter 'without submitting an LLM task.' It clearly differentiates from the delegation and task-management siblings by framing this as a pre-delegation diagnostic.

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 says when to use the tool: 'Use before delegation or when diagnosing connectivity, authentication, backend, or runtime problems.' It also provides what-not conditions, such as not starting a session or running AgentSwarm, but it does not name a specific alternative sibling to use instead in those cases.

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