Build Kimi Review Package

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the package is cached when durable jobs are configured and the tool 'does not modify the session or workspace.' It could disclose failure behavior or freshness implications, but it goes 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?

Four sentences, all information-bearing and front-loaded with the main action in the first sentence. The final sentence restates what annotations already cover, but it is brief and does not bloat the description.

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 tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description communicates inputs, output components, when to reuse, caching behavior, and safety. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains sessionId and its idle-session recommendation. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build a reviewer-oriented snapshot for an owned Kimi session' and enumerates its inputs (handoff, changed files, Git statistics, review checklist). This makes its purpose distinct from siblings like kimi_get_handoff and kimi_get_diff, which cover only pieces of the snapshot.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions ('after delegated implementation work' or 'after recovery') and an explicit reuse rule: if kimi_delegate_and_wait already returned reviewPackage, reuse it unless newer evidence is needed. This is direct when-to-use guidance with an alternative named.

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