clash.optimize.openai

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, does not carry auth credentials, and does not call billing endpoints. It also clarifies that HTTP 401/403 are not network failures. However, it does not mention potential rate limits or the exact probe budget behavior, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 at 5 sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. It efficiently lists checks and non-checks. Could be slightly more streamlined, but no unnecessary words exist.

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 no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., diagnosis results structure). The input parameters are adequately described, but the output is not addressed, leaving the agent uncertain about the response format.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'skipProbes' and 'probeBudgetMs' but repeats schema content without deeper semantic context.

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 OpenAI network reachability diagnosis. It specifies the verb 'diagnoses', the resource 'OpenAI service', and lists specific checks (rule coverage, endpoint reachability). It distinguishes from sibling optimize tools by focusing solely on OpenAI.

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 it is read-only and what it does not do (e.g., collect API keys), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clash.optimize.diagnose_network'. The usage context is implied but not clearly differentiated from general network diagnosis tools.

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