Review code with Kimi K3

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it requires an explicit request and reveals that the tool delegates to an external AI (Kimi K3). The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered, and the description is consistent with them.

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 that states the key usage condition and the core purpose. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 description, combined with complete schema coverage, output schema, and annotations, provides enough information to invoke the tool correctly. It could mention alternative tools or process details, but the essential rule (explicit request) is covered.

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?

All four parameters have descriptive schema entries (100% coverage), so the schema handles parameter semantics. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail, warranting 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 clearly identifies the action ('review code or a diff') and the resource (code/diff with Kimi K3), making the purpose specific. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like review_algorithm, but the name and target resource provide enough distinction.

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?

'Only when explicitly requested' is a strong, explicit usage condition, telling the agent not to invoke this tool proactively. It doesn't mention alternative tools or exclusions, but this condition alone gives clear guidance on when to use it.

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