kimi_fetch_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions the basic operation, omitting details about limitations, authentication, error handling, or output format. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's core function. No unnecessary words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the essential action.

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 lack of an output schema means the description should ideally explain the return format and any caveats. It states 'extract text content' but doesn't mention that the prompt parameter is optional or how to customize extraction. For a simple tool, it's minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 fully describes both parameters (url and prompt) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool fetches a URL and extracts text content, specifying a concrete action and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kimi_web_search or kimi_read_file, so it's clear but not explicitly distinguishing.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as web_search for finding URLs or read_file for local content. There is no context or exclusions mentioned.

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