kimi_read_media

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions using the Moonshot vision API, which implies an external network call, but does not disclose whether the image is modified, potential errors, rate limits, or output format. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with no redundancy, achieving high conciseness. However, it is so brief that it omits critical information, making it not appropriately sized for the tool's needs. It earns points for front-loading the purpose but loses for under-specification.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a one-line summary. It lacks usage context, behavior details, and complete parameter semantics, leaving major gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly. Significant additional information is needed.

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?

The schema covers path and prompt with descriptions, but workFolder is undocumented. The description adds no explanation for any parameter, including the ambiguous workFolder, and does not enrich the schema's existing descriptions. With 67% coverage and no description support, the agent lacks full parameter understanding.

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 the specific verb 'Analyze' with the resource 'images', clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like kimi_read_file by specifying media/images and referencing the Moonshot vision API. No ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with kimi_read_file or other sibling tools. Usage context is only implied by the word 'images'.

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