clash.profiles.inspect_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior and adds a key behavioral detail: script files are fingerprinted by raw content (not YAML-parsed), which is beyond a simple read-only statement. This helps the agent understand how fingerprints are computed. However, it does not mention any potential side effects or dependencies.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a specific behavioral nuance. Ideal for quick agent comprehension.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description explains what is inspected (layers and fingerprints) sufficiently for a decision. A minor gap is that it does not hint at the output format (e.g., a list or object), but the detail on fingerprinting compensates. Overall, it is complete enough for the use case.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline 4 is appropriate as it neither adds nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 the verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'active profile's full reference chain', listing specific layers (profile, merge, script, rules, proxies, groups) with per-layer fingerprints. It effectively distinguishes from sibling inspect tools like clash.profiles.inspect which likely inspects only the profile layer, not the full chain.

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 mentions 'Read-only' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clash.profiles.inspect, clash.merge.inspect, or other inspect tools. There is no explicit context for when-not-to-use or preferred scenarios.

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