clash.config.audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates an audit function but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The lack of behavioral details (e.g., no mention of being safe to call anytime) leaves ambiguity for a diagnostic tool.

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 with an appended list of output fields, making it concise and front-loaded with the verb 'Audit'. Every element provides relevant information without waste.

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 there are no parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the output structure (current fact, potential impact, applicability condition). However, it could be more complete by mentioning the scope of issues detected or any prerequisites, though the simplicity of the tool mitigates this gap.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description appropriately adds no extra parameter info, as none exist. A score of 4 is the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 audits configuration for issues and provides conditional recommendations, specifying the output structure (current fact, potential impact, applicability condition). It is distinct from sibling tools like clash.config.get_effective or clash.optimize.*, which either retrieve config or perform specialized optimizations.

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 implies the tool is for diagnosing configuration issues, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives such as clash.config.validate_change or clash.optimize.health_checks. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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