kimi_glob

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic operation. It does not disclose whether the search is recursive, whether workFolder is optional, how results are returned, or any error handling behavior (e.g., invalid patterns). This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and usage context. It does not state the output format (e.g., list of file paths), whether paths are relative or absolute, or how the workFolder parameter affects search scope. This leaves the agent uncertain about expected outputs.

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%, as both 'pattern' and 'workFolder' have descriptive text in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already 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 'Find files matching a glob pattern' uses a specific verb 'Find' with a clear resource ('files') and a precise qualifier ('matching a glob pattern'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kimi_grep (which searches file contents) and kimi_read_file (which reads files).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the function without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like kimi_grep or kimi_shell. The usage is only implied by the name and description, but no alternative selection help is given.

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