clash.runtime.list_proxy_providers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, what is returned (names and safe summaries), and crucially what is NOT returned (subscription URLs and credentials). This is excellent transparency.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the read-only nature, then states the output purpose, and closes with a security note. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

For a simple list tool with a fully documented input schema, the description covers purpose, behavioral traits, and a sibling linkage (refresh_proxy_provider). No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes the return content. Complete and self-sufficient.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (limit, cursor, filter). The tool description adds no extra meaning or usage context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 lists proxy provider names and runtime summaries. It explicitly tags the tool as read-only and notes its utility with refresh_proxy_provider. Among siblings like list_proxy_groups and list_rule_providers, this one is uniquely about proxy providers, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 as a precursor to refresh_proxy_provider, offering clear context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative list tools (e.g., list_rule_providers) or state when not to use it. The privacy disclaimer about sensitive data not being returned is helpful.

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