Build Kimi Review Package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it 'does not modify files or session state,' which reinforces the safety profile but is redundant. However, it also mentions 'read-only' and 'fresh snapshot,' adding context about the nature of the output, and clarifies it's for review purposes.

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 efficient, but it could be more front-loaded: the core purpose is in the first clause, but the alternative guidance is in the middle. Still, every sentence is substantive, and it avoids redundancy. A slight improvement would be to separate the usage guideline into its own sentence, but it's well within acceptable.

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 read-only tool with a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, when to use it, and safety. It doesn't detail the output structure, but that's not required given the low complexity and absence of an output schema. The only minor gap is a possible mention of error conditions, but that's minor.

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% for the scription of sessionId. The description adds a recommendation to use an idle session, which adds semantic guidance beyond the schema. That merits a slight bump, but since the schema already covers the parameter well, baseline is 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 states the tool's purpose: to build a read-only review package combining handoff, changed files, Git statistics, and checklist. It mentions the specific resource (one Kimi session) and the action (combining evidence). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming kimi_delegate_and_wait and explaining when to use it instead.

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 to use it after delegated implementation work and provides a clear alternative: if kimi_delegate_and_wait already returned an embedded reviewPackage, prefer that unless a fresh snapshot is needed. This provides both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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