clash.optimize.diagnose_network

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: read-only, no configuration modification, safe probe targets only (no arbitrary URLs), and return structure (facts, probes, findings, recommendations, proposedActions).

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 sentences: first defines purpose and scope, second describes output and constraints. No wasted words, front-loaded with version ID and key safety traits.

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 2 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, the description adequately covers behavior, constraints, output structure, and safety. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Parameter descriptions in schema already explain skipProbes and probeBudgetMs. Description adds value by clarifying that probeBudgetMs is the 'total' budget (default 30000, max 60000) and that probes are 'predefined safe targets', but this is moderate added value over schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs a read-only network diagnosis, listing specific components checked (Controller, Adapter, DNS, etc.) and output format (versioned report). It distinguishes from sibling optimization tools by emphasizing diagnosis vs. optimization.

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?

Description explicitly says it's read-only, does not modify configuration, and uses safe probe targets. However, it does not directly compare to alternatives like clash.doctor or other optimize tools; usage context is implied but not explicit.

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