clash.override.inspect

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

The description declares 'Read-only' and mentions fingerprinting of script content as raw bytes. However, without annotations, it lacks details on failure modes, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences long and communicates the purpose clearly. It is front-loaded with the main action and additional details about fingerprinting. While it could be slightly more concise, it avoids redundancy and is well-structured.

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 lack of an output schema, the description does not specify the format or content of the return value. It mentions inspection and fingerprinting but omits what the agent can expect as a result. For an inspect tool, this is a notable gap.

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?

The single parameter 'uid' is fully described in the input schema (regex constraint, default behavior). The description adds context about file path resolution and fingerprinting, but does not enhance understanding of the parameter beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a 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 the verb 'inspect' and the specific resource: the active profile's referenced Script/Override owner or a specific script UID. It also mentions the read-only nature, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like clash.profiles.inspect.

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 implies usage for inspecting overrides but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like clash.profiles.inspect. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are stated.

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