bg-kimi

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

Annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) indicate mutation and potential destruction. The description adds that tasks run detached, require polling, and can be stopped or removed, providing helpful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a list of subactions. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with actionable subcommands, earning its place without fluff.

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 19 parameters, no output schema, and destructive behavior, the description provides adequate high-level context but lacks details on parameters and return values. It is minimally sufficient for an agent but leaves gaps for complex usage.

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 53%, leaving many parameters (e.g., cd, addDirs, thinking) undocumented in both schema and description. The description lists subactions and a few parameter contexts (e.g., --yolo, prompt required for start) but fails to explain many critical parameters, reducing value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: running Kimi CLI as a detached background task. It lists subactions (start, status, tail, stop, remove, list) and distinguishes it from synchronous siblings by emphasizing 'long-running autonomous work' and immediate return.

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 advises using this tool for long-running tasks and notes that the MCP call returns immediately for polling later. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, missing clear exclusion criteria.

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