Get Kimi Handoff

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

Annotations already signal read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this by stating it does not submit or modify. It adds genuinely new behavior: durable-job reconciliation and caching of the returned handoff, which are side effects an agent might not expect from a read-only 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?

Four sentences, each with a distinct job: scope, use timing, return payload, durable side-effect, and non-modification guarantee. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler, though the durable-job sentence adds nuance that could have been separate.

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 a single obvious parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the key return fields and the exact lifecycle timing, which is enough to call it correctly. The only minor gap is that 'current or final' and 'owned' are not formally defined, but siblings fill the surrounding workflow.

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 only parameter, sessionId, has a complete schema description. The tool description adds the 'owned' constraint and ties the ID to current/final result retrieval, giving a bit more selection meaning than the schema alone.

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 first sentence names a concrete read action ('Read') on a specific resource ('current or final handoff for an owned Kimi session'), which clearly distinguishes it from delegation, waiting, diff, abort, and status siblings. It also immediately scopes to 'current or final' and 'owned,' so an agent can classify the tool as a retrieval operation.

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 to use after kimi_wait_until_idle reports idle or during recovery when authoritative status/result must be refreshed. It does not name a sibling alternative for when not to use it, and the negative constraint ('does not submit another prompt') is more of a safety note than an exclusion, so this is clear context without full alternative routing.

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