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, but it only mentions a context window size. It fails to describe what the tool actually does when invoked, such as whether it returns a report, if it performs iterative research, or any side effects, permissions, or limitations.

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 short sentence, but it is extremely under-specified for a complex research tool. It lacks any structure or elaboration, so the brevity is not a virtue but a deficiency, obscuring the essential use and behavior.

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 apparent complexity (research with 256K context), only one required parameter, no output schema, and 13 sibling tools, the description is vastly incomplete. It omits what the tool returns, how it differs from similar tools, and any usage context, making it nearly impossible for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% for all three parameters (question, context, workFolder), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning exactly the baseline score.

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 'Research and analysis with 256K context window' is vague and essentially restates the tool name. It does not specify a concrete verb+resource or differentiate from sibling tools like kimi_agent or kimi_web_search, leaving the primary purposed unclear beyond a general research/analysis capability.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, restrictions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to guess whether to choose this over kimi_agent or kimi_web_search.

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