clash.merge.inspect

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

The description highlights read-only nature and lists returned data (DNS/TUN/rules summary, fingerprint, paginated rules). Without annotations, this provides solid transparency, though could mention that no modifications occur.

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 cover action, defaults, return values, and read-only flag. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete for a simple inspection tool: explains input defaults, output summary, and pagination. Missing output schema is compensated by description. Could briefly mention error handling, but not essential.

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 descriptions already cover all parameters thoroughly. The tool description adds practical context (default uid, pagination for limit/cursor) that enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 it inspects a Merge file by uid, specifying default behavior (active profile's merge) and output summary. This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like clash.profiles.inspect or clash.rules.inspect.

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 usage context by mentioning defaults and read-only nature, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling names help, but lack of explicit guidance prevents a 5.

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