clash.optimize.proxy_groups

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

Description fully discloses read-only behavior, the exact checks performed, and the return structure (versioned report with findings and proposedActions). Also clarifies that node names are not used for geographic inference. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden and meets it excellently.

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?

Description is a single paragraph with three sentences, each adding essential information (purpose, checks, disclaimers). No wasted words; front-loaded with the main function.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: what the tool does, what it checks, and what it returns. The disclaimer about node names adds necessary context for an optimization tool.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (no parameters to document). The description does not need to add parameter info; it correctly focuses on behavior.

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 it is a read-only diagnosis for proxy groups, listing specific checks (empty groups, invalid references, selection validity, etc.) and the output format. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on proxy groups 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?

Explicitly notes the tool is read-only and does not modify proxy groups, providing clear usage context. While it does not name alternative tools, the purpose is well-defined and self-contained.

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