clash.config.get_persistent

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns and explicitly states a behavioral constraint (not returning generated yaml). It doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or performance, but as a read operation with no parameters, the description is sufficiently transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences. First sentence states the purpose and scope. Second sentence clarifies an exclusion and points to an alternative. No redundant information.

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 the simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains what is returned and what is not. Could be improved by briefly noting the return format, but it's adequate for agent use.

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 tool has no parameters, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add param info. It correctly implies that no inputs are required.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'persistent config sources summary', listing specific components. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'clash.config.get_generated' by stating what it does not return.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (to get persistent config summary) and when not to (if needing generated yaml), and explicitly names the alternative 'clash.config.get_generated'. However, it does not address other siblings like 'get_effective'.

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