kimi_research

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the 128K context window and lacks any details about side effects, read-only nature, file access behavior beyond the schema, or output format. The schema's workFolder parameter indicates file reading, but the description does not confirm this or explain other behaviors.

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 that is front-loaded with the core action and includes a relevant technical detail. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could benefit from a bit more specification to reach full effectiveness.

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 the tool's complexity (research/analysis over codebases), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain how the tool processes the codebase, what kind of answers to expect, whether it can access external resources, or how it uses the context and workFolder parameters. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra semantics to the parameters themselves; it only restates the general purpose (analyze/answer questions) which aligns with the 'question' parameter. No additional meaning is provided beyond the 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 states the tool analyzes a codebase or answers questions, which is a specific verb+resource combination. The '128K context' adds a distinguishing feature, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kimi_think or kimi_agent.

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 'using 128K context' implies the tool is suitable for large-context workloads, providing a clear usage context without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. There is no direct 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance, but the context window size serves as an implicit selection criterion.

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