kimi_agent

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only says 'autonomous agent' without disclosing execution model, potential side effects, permission requirements, or return value. For an agent that may perform arbitrary actions, this opaque lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence and front-loaded with the core identity of the tool, but it is under-specified for a tool of this complexity. While not overly verbose, the brevity omits critical usage and behavioral details, so it earns only an average score for concise structure.

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 that this is an autonomous agent capable of complex multi-step tasks, the description is highly incomplete. With no output schema and no explanation of the agent's behavior, tools used, or edge cases, the description fails to sufficiently contextualize the tool's operation for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description (e.g., 'Task description for the agent', 'Timeout in seconds', 'Working directory'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 states it is an autonomous agent for complex multi-step tasks, which identifies the tool's general role but lacks a specific verb+resource structure. It does distinguish itself from sibling file/shell/research tools by framing itself as an agent, but the exact actions it performs are not stated.

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 phrase 'complex multi-step tasks' implies that this tool is appropriate when a task requires multiple steps, leaving simpler operations to siblings like kimi_read_file or kimi_shell. However, there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives, so the guidance remains implied rather than directive.

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