kimi_glob

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function and omits any behavioral traits such as recursion behavior, hidden file handling, path format, or whether the operation is read-only. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the essential verb and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 simple tool with well-documented parameters, and the absence of an output schema is acceptable because the return type (matching file paths) is intuitive from the description. However, the lack of annotations and minimal behavioral details slightly reduce completeness compared to richer tool descriptions.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (pattern, path, workFolder), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to given the comprehensive 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('files matching a glob pattern'), clearly conveying the tool's function. It is inherently distinct from siblings like kimi_grep (content search) and kimi_read_file (single file access), as glob matches filenames rather than file contents.

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 when you need to locate files by pattern, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or references to alternative tools. It's a simple statement without contextual direction.

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