Help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond stating it shows output. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate – adequate but no additional transparency.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple, parameterless help tool, the description is complete. It fully explains the tool's purpose. No output schema exists, but the return value is implied. The description suffices.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline 4 is correct as the description adds no extra meaning beyond the empty 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?

The description 'Show Kimi CLI help output' clearly states the verb and resource, specifying exactly what the tool does. It is not a tautology and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask-kimi or version, which have different purposes.

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 vs alternatives. With 13 sibling tools, such guidance would help the agent choose correctly. The description offers no context for usage.

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