kimi_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'analyzing,' which hints at a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it modifies anything, whether it requires network access, or any other behavioral specifics. This is a significant gap for a tool that could act on code.

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 directly states the core purpose without any filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and appropriately sized for the tool's simple function.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, and the description is minimal. It does not explain what a review result looks like, whether it returns a report or modifies anything, or any constraints. For a tool that may process code, this description is incomplete and leaves too much to assumption.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by listing the focus areas (bugs, security, performance, style), which align with the focus enum, but it does not elaborate on parameter usage or provide any additional context beyond what the schema already states.

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 'Code review analyzing bugs, security, performance, and style' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('review') and resource ('code'). It also enumerates specific analysis areas, making it easily distinguishable from sibling file manipulation tools like kimi_write_file and kimi_read_file.

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 implies usage for code review scenarios through its focus on analyzing bugs, security, etc., but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. It falls into the 'implied usage' category without exclusions or alternative mentions.

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