kimi_fetch_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that HTML is stripped and text content is returned, but it does not disclose error handling, network requirements, redirects, authentication, rate limits, or what happens for non-HTML content.

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, tightly written sentence that immediately states the action, target, and output format. It contains no filler or redundant information.

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 one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks details about error behavior, allowed URL schemes, the meaning of 'workFolder', and any limitations, making it insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.

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 50%: the 'url' parameter is documented as 'URL to fetch', but 'workFolder' has no description. The tool description adds no information about the parameters, leaving 'workFolder' ambiguous and failing to compensate for the incomplete 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 ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('a URL') and states the output ('return its text content (HTML stripped)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kimi_read_file (local files) and kimi_web_search (search results).

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 implies usage when the agent needs the raw text content of a specific URL, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as kimi_web_search or kimi_read_file, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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