brainstorm

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. Description adds context that the tool generates ideas and incorporates analysis, but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or data handling beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Single sentence that effectively conveys the tool's purpose and key features with no redundant or extraneous words. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and 12 parameters, the description provides high-level context (frameworks, domain, analysis) but does not explain the return format or how to iterate on results. Sufficient for basic understanding but not fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 12 parameters. The description mentions 'domain context' and 'feasibility analysis' which map to 'domain' and 'includeAnalysis' parameters, but does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Generate', resource 'creative ideas', and method 'structured frameworks with domain context and feasibility analysis'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask-kimi (general Q&A) and plan-kimi (planning).

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?

Description implies usage for brainstorming with domain focus and analysis, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use.

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