Diagnose local Mihomo environment

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by listing the specific aspects inspected and the recommended usage context, providing additional behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two concise sentences, with the action verb front-loaded and a clear list of inspected items. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague language.

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 output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description explains what is inspected and provides usage context. A minor gap is the lack of differentiation from the sibling tool run_health_check, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a diagnostic 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?

The description does not mention the config_path parameter at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. Since the schema provides no details, the description should compensate but fails to explain the purpose or format of the optional parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' followed by a clear enumeration of resources (macOS, Clash Verge paths, Unix controller, system proxy, AI group, LaunchAgent). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on environment diagnosis rather than status or health checks.

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 states 'Use before any installation or troubleshooting action,' providing a clear when-to-use directive. It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the usage context is well-defined.

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