clash.optimize.verify_baseline

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It explicitly states 'Does NOT modify any configuration' and 'Read-only' upfront. It also enumerates the specific conditions checked for drift (Profile, run mode, etc.), providing complete behavioral insight.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: read-only intent, drift comparison details, protocol step, and safety note. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description covers return values (matched=true/false with details), the specific aspects checked, and the action on drift. This is complete for a verification tool, requiring no further elaboration.

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%, and the description merely restates the parameter purpose as 'The baselineFingerprint from the original optimizer report.' It does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 baseline drift verification' tool that re-collects the current baseline fingerprint and compares it to the original. It specifies exactly what it does, with a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from other optimize tools by focusing on drift detection.

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 includes an explicit protocol step: 'Per v1.0-D protocol step 1: if drift is detected, re-diagnose instead of executing proposedActions.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and the mention of 're-diagnose' gives actionable context without needing sibling comparison.

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