clash.runtime.get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must communicate behavioral traits. It notes the tool returns specific status fields, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or free of side effects. The behavior is mostly implied by the name 'get_status', but explicit transparency is lacking.

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 a single sentence that efficiently states the purpose and lists key aspects. There is no unnecessary information; every word adds value. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 covers the essential information by listing the fields returned. However, it could be slightly more complete by stating the return structure (e.g., an object with these fields) or clarifying that it is a simple read operation. Nonetheless, it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything. The description adds meaning by enumerating the content of the status (version, mode, ports, etc.), which gives the agent context on what information will be retrieved. This exceeds the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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 tool retrieves Mihomo runtime status and lists specific fields it returns (version, mode, ports, connections count, traffic totals). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Mihomo runtime status'), and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'clash.runtime.list_connections'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool is simple and has no parameters, the description does not mention that it is safe to call at any time or that it is read-only, nor does it differentiate from other query tools like 'clash.doctor' or 'clash.runtime.list_proxy_groups'.

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