kimi_shell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention the inherently dangerous nature of shell execution, potential for system modification, or how errors are handled. Only the basic behavior of returning output is disclosed, which is insufficient for a tool of this risk.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the core purpose, making it appropriately concise for a tool with a simple function.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description only says 'return output' without explaining the format, exit code behavior, or whether stderr is captured. For a shell tool with potentially complex execution behavior, this is underspecified. The high schema coverage on parameters helps, but the lack of output/behavior detail lowers completeness.

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, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('shell commands') and clearly states the output ('return output'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like file operations or web search, which do not execute arbitrary shell commands.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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