Observe local Provider domains

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds critical behavioral details: sanitization, a 60-second cap, and the special handling of temporal-only candidates (hidden by default, never auto-recommended even when requested). This gives the agent concrete expectations about output and internal logic.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place. The main action is front-loaded, followed by output exclusions and a nuanced behavioral note. No filler 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 an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, constraints, and key behavior. It leaves parameter details to the schema but is otherwise complete for selecting and invoking the 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 coverage is 0% and the description provides only indirect hints about parameters (e.g., 'up to 60 seconds' hints at duration_seconds, 'explicitly requested' hints at include_temporal_candidates). It does not clearly map behavior to parameter names or explain the role of config_path or provider_id.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Observe') and resource ('sanitized Mihomo connection hostnames'), and clearly scopes the action to 'while the user exercises one Provider.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the sanitized, limited nature of the observation and explicitly listing what it never returns.

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 a clear usage context ('while the user exercises one Provider') and excludes use cases by stating 'Never returns URLs, paths, connection IDs, IPs, or chains.' However, it does not name specific alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it.

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