generate_client_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'generates' configuration, implying a read-only operation that produces output, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific inputs, what format the output takes, or any side effects. For a tool with 19 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does ('Generate Xray client configuration') and why ('for connecting to a proxy server'), with zero waste or redundancy.

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 complexity (19 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the tool's purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, or dependencies. With high schema coverage, the description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it should provide more behavioral context for such a multifaceted tool.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'Server address (IP or domain)', 'Protocol type'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting but doesn't compensate with extra context.

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: 'Generate Xray client configuration for connecting to a proxy server.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('Xray client configuration'), and context ('for connecting to a proxy server'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_server_config' or 'validate_config', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'generate_server_config' (for server-side configuration) and 'validate_config' (for validation), the agent must infer usage based on tool names alone. No explicit when/when-not statements or prerequisites are mentioned.

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