kimi_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Full autonomous agent' hints at broad capabilities and potential side effects, but does not disclose whether it may write files, execute shell commands, or perform network calls. This lack of detail is concerning for an agent that likely takes destructive or irreversible actions.

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 short, which could be seen as concise, but it under-specifies the tool to the point of being unhelpful. It lacks structure or any details that would help an agent decide when to invoke this tool. The single sentence does not 'earn its place' because it conveys almost no actionable 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?

This is a high-complexity autonomous agent tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must provide substantial context. It fails to explain the scope of tasks, safety implications, or how it relates to the underlying tools it presumably uses. The description is grossly inadequate for a tool of this magnitude.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (prompt, timeout, workFolder), so schema coverage is 100%. However, the tool description adds no additional context about how these parameters interact or what constitutes a good prompt. It meets the baseline but does not enhance 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 states the tool is an 'autonomous agent for complex multi-step tasks,' which gives a general sense of purpose but lacks specificity about what actions it can perform. It does not clearly distinguish itself from the sibling tools like kimi_shell or kimi_write_file, which are concrete operations. The resource is vague ('tasks') rather than a specific verb-object pair.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this agent versus the individual sibling tools. The description does not mention situations where kimi_agent would be preferred, nor does it exclude simpler cases. It offers no context about prerequisites or alternatives.

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