clash.optimize.github

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is read-only, does not carry a GitHub token, does not execute push/login/write operations, and does not read private repo content. It also explains the diagnostic process layer-by-layer (DNS/TCP/TLS/HTTP/rule_match), providing complete transparency.

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 a single paragraph of three sentences, each sentence adding essential information: version/read-only nature, what endpoints are probed, and exclusions. No unnecessary words; highly efficient and front-loaded with key details.

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 tool has no output schema, but the description explains that it 'reports failures layer-by-layer' which is sufficient context for a diagnostic tool. It covers the input parameters and behavioral constraints comprehensively. A slight improvement would be to mention the output format more explicitly, but it is largely complete.

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% for the two parameters (skipProbes, probeBudgetMs), so the description does not need to add much. The description implies the behavior of skipProbes and budget by mentioning 'network probes' and 'local facts', but does not explicitly describe the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Read-only GitHub service network reachability diagnosis' and specifies the endpoints (github.com, api.github.com, codeload.github.com) and the layers checked (DNS/TCP/TLS/HTTP/rule_match). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clash.optimize.diagnose_network or clash.optimize.openai which target different services.

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 states what the tool does (diagnose GitHub reachability) and what it does NOT do (carry token, write operations, read private repo). However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus related siblings like clash.optimize.dns or clash.optimize.rules. The context is adequate but lacks explicit when-to-use/alternatives.

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