kimi_think

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key trait of being non-action-oriented, which is essential for safety. However, it does not describe what the analysis output looks like, whether it accesses external data, or any operational constraints, leaving some 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 that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and safety distinction. It sufficiently equips an agent to understand what the tool does, though it could mention return format or problem-phrasing expectations.

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%, with both 'problem' and 'context' clearly described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Extended reasoning and analysis without taking actions' clearly indicates the tool performs reasoning and analysis, and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools that take actions. It is specific about the core function and scope, though it lacks a precise verb like 'analyze'.

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 phrase 'without taking actions' implies use cases where pure reasoning is needed without side effects, contrasting with sibling tools that perform actions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provide exclusions or formal guidance.

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