Wait for Kimi Session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies that the tool 'does not abort the job on timeout' and mentions the return of 'normalized wait status and pending approval/question data when applicable.' This provides information about side effects and outcomes that the annotations do not cover. 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 long, each with a distinct purpose: statement of function, guidance on when to use, and a note on safety/returns. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no redundant or filler content. 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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential information: what the tool does, when to use it, its read-only nature, what it returns, and the timeout behavior. It does not explain polling intervals or default timeout values, but the timeoutMs parameter makes that optional. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% for both parameters. The schema already explains sessionId as the 'Kimi session ID returned by delegation or session-discovery tools' and timeoutMs with its behavior. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Poll an existing Kimi session until it is idle, times out, requires approval or a question response, is aborted, or fails.' This includes a specific verb (poll), a resource (Kimi session), and enumerates the possible terminal states. It also distinguishes itself by noting it does not abort the job on timeout, which differentiates it from sibling tools like kimi_abort or kimi_delegate_and_wait.

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 usage context: 'Use after kimi_delegate_task or after an earlier wait timed out.' This tells the agent when to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., comparing with kimi_delegate_and_wait which combines delegation and wait). The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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