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 significant behavioral context beyond these: it is a diagnostics-only tool, does not expose credentials, does not start a swarm, and does not modify the workspace. It also mentions 'safe diagnostics' and 'suggested next actions', reassuring the agent about side-effect-free execution. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences pack a precise purpose, explicit usage guidance, and behavioral exclusions, with no filler. The main action and target are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the negative guarantees are placed last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 0-parameter read-only status tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what is checked (health/auth, metadata, diagnostics), when to use it, and what it does not do. Although no output schema exists, the description enumerates the return content in enough detail for an agent to predict the result shape.

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 there is no parameter-level work for the description to do. Schema coverage is 100% by default with an empty properties object. Baseline score of 4 for 0-param tools is appropriate; the description adds nothing parameter-specific because nothing is needed.

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 verb 'Check' plus resource 'live bridge and private Kimi-runtime readiness' clearly states the tool's specific function. It enumerates the checks (health/auth, backend/version, diagnostics, suggestions) and explicitly contrasts with delegation tools by saying it does not submit an LLM task or start a swarm. This differentiates it from all named siblings.

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 gives explicit timing: 'Use before delegation or when troubleshooting connectivity and authentication.' This directly tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly or state when not to use, but the context of siblings and the negative 'does not' statements provide enough differentiation for a conditional diagnostic tool.

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