kimi_review

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, input requirements, and output behavior. It only names review categories; it does not state that the tool is read-only, whether it can modify code, what the return format is, or how the path/focus arguments affect execution.

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 9-word sentence, front-loaded with its core purpose and free of redundant phrasing. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to under-specification, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context. For a 3-parameter review tool, it omits essential information about return values, side effects, file requirements, and the role of optional parameters, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 documents 'path' and 'focus' but leaves 'workFolder' undescribed. The description mentions overlapping categories (bugs, security, performance) that may map to the 'focus' parameter, adding marginal value, but it does not clarify workFolder or how focus values are interpreted.

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 tool's function as code review and names three focus areas (bugs, security, performance). It is distinct from sibling file-read/write/search tools, though it does not explicitly state that it analyzes a specific file path or how results are delivered.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over siblings like kimi_read_file or kimi_test. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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