List Recent Durable Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false Publishing. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: it operates on a persistent registry and does not contact Kimi, making behavior transparent during runtime outages. No contradiction with the 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: definition, usage timing, return payload, and a critical behavioral note. The primary statement is front-loaded)Skip and the guidance follows naturally without padding.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: when to call it, what it returns (status, identifiers, workspace, swarm mode, cached results/errors, timestamps), and that it works even if Kimi is unavailable. The pagination default/cap is already present in the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'status' and 'pageSize' fully documented including defaults, enum values, and caps. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail, but that is acceptable because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), a precise object ('recent connector-owned durable jobs'), and the source ('persistent bridge registry'). The description also frames the tool as the recovery path for a lost jobId/sessionId, which clearly separates it from siblings like kimi_recent_sessions and kimi_get_handoff.

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 directs the agent to 'use this first' after timeouts, disconnects, bridge restarts, or lost responses, and notes it remains usable when the Kimi runtime is down. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of the full 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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