Plan a project with Kimi K3

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as that this invokes an external AI model or the nature of the plan output. It is not misleading, but it provides minimal additional transparency beyond the 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the usage condition and action. It is concise and easy to parse. However, it is also under-specified, lacking useful context about the planning process, but it avoids verbosity.

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 a rich schema and an output schema, but the description is very sparse. It does not explain what kind of project plan is produced or how the parameters are used. Given the richness of the structured fields, the description is minimally acceptable but could do more to aid selection.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the structured fields fully document them. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics, relying entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the information.

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 states the action 'ask Kimi K3 to create a project plan' and the title says 'Plan a project', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools 'review_algorithm' and 'review_code', which are for code review. However, the description is conditional and does not add detail beyond the title.

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 explicitly says 'Only when explicitly requested', providing a clear when-to-use condition and implying not to use it proactively. It does not name alternatives, but the siblings are clearly review tools, so there is no ambiguity. This meets the 'when' criterion but lacks explicit when-not and alternative references.

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