Get Kimi Handoff

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false; the description's read-only sentence mostly restates that. It adds useful context about the delivered handoff contents, but no new behavioral traits such as failure modes, authorization requirements, or side-effect details 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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct role: what it reads, when to use it versus the alternative, and safety confirmation. The key scoping information is front-loaded and there is no 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the invocation timing and the categories of returned content. An agent has enough information to select and call this tool without significant ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100% and the single sessionId parameter already has a clear description ('whose current/final result and Git-change evidence should be retrieved'). The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a precise resource ('current/final handoff for one Kimi session') and enumerates the included content: assistant result, changed files, committed changes, working-tree changes, and Git baseline evidence. It also names kimi_review_package as the condensed alternative, making the purpose distinct from at least the closest sibling.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool after a session finishes when the caller needs the actual result or change details, and directs reviewer-oriented needs to kimi_review_package. This gives a clear when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and named alternative.

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