List Recent Kimi Sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context beyond those: it clarifies that this is a raw metadata query only, and it reveals a subtle behavioral rule that the listing itself does not grant authorization. This is useful, non-duplicative behavioral disclosure beyond 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?

The description is three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second provides usage guidance with an explicit alternative, and the third adds a brief behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and four optional parameters, the description covers the essentials: what the tool returns, when to use it, why it differs from the durable-job alternative, and its authorization caveat. It also names the core return fields, which is sufficient for a read-only discovery tool.

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%, so the schema already fully explains all four parameters (status, pageSize, excludeEmpty, includeArchive). The description mentions return fields such as statuses and titles but does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 opens with a precise action and resource: 'List recent raw Kimi sessions' and enumerates the returned metadata (identifiers, statuses, titles, web links, workspace metadata). It also draws an explicit contrast with kimi_recent_jobs, calling this tool a 'discovery fallback' and positioning it as the non-durable alternative, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 routing guidance: 'Use this as a discovery fallback when durable job recovery is unavailable; when durable jobs are configured, prefer kimi_recent_jobs because it is connector-owned and persistent.' It also warns that raw session discovery is not authorization and that session-oriented tools still enforce durable ownership when configured, clarifying when and why this tool should be chosen.

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