Preview local installation

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

The description discloses that the tool previews changes and reports the environment, adding behavioral detail beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false). It also explicitly states 'without writing files,' reinforcing the non-destructive nature. No contradictions with 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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Preview') and conveys the scope ('persistent Clash Verge group/rule changes') and side-effect-free nature ('without writing files'). Every phrase is meaningful with no 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?

For a simple read-only preview tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main behavior and non-mutation. However, the unaddressed parameter semantics create a minor gap in how to use the tool effectively.

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's only parameter, config_path, is not described in the description, and schema coverage is 0%. The name gives a hint, but the description does not explain how it relates to the preview (e.g., path to a Clash Verge configuration file). This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 action ('Preview'), the resource ('persistent Clash Verge group/rule changes'), and its scope ('report the environment without writing files'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like install_failover and diagnose_environment by emphasizing the preview-only, non-destructive behavior.

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 phrase 'without writing files' provides clear context that this is a dry-run/simulation tool, implying it should be used before actual changes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the sibling tools suggest install_failover is for actual installation.

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