List Recent Kimi Sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'This is read-only and only queries Kimi session metadata.' It adds useful context by specifying that the tool only queries metadata rather than session content, which goes beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction with 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 filler: the core purpose is front-loaded, then the intended usage context and the alternative tool, then a concise read-only note. 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 simple filtered-list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it lists the kind of data returned, explains when to use it versus the sibling, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. The schema covers parameters fully, 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%, so the schema fully documents status, pageSize, excludeEmpty, and includeArchive. The description does not repeat parameter details, which is appropriate; the baseline of 3 applies because the description relies on the schema for parameter meaning and does not add extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent Kimi sessions'), and further clarifies the returned data: identifiers, statuses, titles, web links, and workspace metadata. It also distinguishes itself from kimi_find_recent_session by noting that the sibling is for when a title fragment is known, so there is no ambiguity about which tool does what.

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 states exactly when to use this tool: before waiting, reviewing, continuing, aborting, or creating a possible duplicate to discover an existing job. It explicitly names kimi_find_recent_session as the alternative when a title fragment is known, which gives clear selection guidance.

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