kimi_read_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that content is returned up to 'limit lines,' which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not mention error handling, file existence requirements, or permissions. The non-destructive nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that front-load the main action and a key behavioral constraint. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler 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?

For a simple read tool, the description conveys the core operation well, but it leaves gaps: it does not specify the return format, behavior on invalid paths, or the meaning of 'workFolder.' Given no output schema and no annotations, these omissions are noticeable, though not catastrophic for such a straightforward tool.

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 descriptions already cover path, limit, and offset with clear explanations (75% coverage). The description adds marginal value by restating 'up to limit lines,' but it does not clarify the undocumented 'workFolder' parameter or how offset interacts with limit.

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 reads a text file and returns its content, using the specific verb 'read' and resource 'text file.' This distinguishes it from siblings like kimi_write_file, kimi_edit_file, and kimi_read_media.

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 for reading text files but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions (e.g., binary files). The sibling list provides context, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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