clash.profiles.refresh

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

No annotations provided; description fully compensates by disclosing behavior: remote require light confirmation, local NOT_APPLICABLE, fail-closed to BLOCKED when adapter unavailable/unauthenticated, and clarifies it is a Verge subscription refresh.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value: purpose, local behavior, remote+fail behavior, disambiguation. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Covers key scenarios (local, remote, fail-closed) and disambiguates from Mihomo refresh. Lacks details on success/error response format or typical effects, but no output schema exists to rely on.

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%; description adds minimal new meaning beyond schema. The mention of 'light confirmation' for the confirmed param repeats schema info. No additional parameter insights.

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 action (refresh), target (remote subscription Profile via Clash Verge Adapter), and distinguishes from related sibling tools like Mihomo Provider refresh. Includes edge cases for local profiles (returns NOT_APPLICABLE).

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?

Provides clear context: use for remote subscription profiles, not local; remote require confirmation. Does not explicitly list when not to use compared to sibling refresh tools (e.g., clash.runtime.refresh_proxy_provider), but the differentiation Verge vs Mihomo is noted.

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