clash.optimize.compare_probes

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the read-only nature, classification behavior, critical regression detection requiring rollback, and the caveat that config write success does not equal optimization success.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is 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?

The description explains the classification outcomes and critical regression behavior. Although no output schema is present, it covers the essential return state. It could benefit from specifying the exact result structure.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both params. The description adds value by specifying constraints (same targets, sample counts, timeouts) and implying the arrays must match in structure, though it does not detail the object fields.

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 is a read-only before/after probe comparison tool that classifies outcomes into four categories. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it does NOT execute probes or modify configuration.

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 when having before and after probes, and states what it does not do. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other optimization tools like diagnose_network or dns.

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