clash.config.get_effective

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves config but does not explicitly declare it as a safe read-only operation or mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations.

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 consists of two concise sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and parameter usage without unnecessary words.

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 retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns, default behavior, and parameter usage. It could mention possible section values more comprehensively, but it's adequate.

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 parameter 'section' is described in the schema, but the tool description adds context by explaining the default return and how the parameter modifies output, which goes beyond the schema's description.

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 retrieves the Mihomo runtime effective config from the API, and distinguishes between a summary return and specific section retrieval. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_generated' and 'get_persistent'.

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 explains default behavior and how to use the optional 'section' parameter to get a specific config block. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but the guidance is clear for the intended use case.

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