clash.runtime.list_rule_providers

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only' and that provider URLs and credentials are never returned, giving clear safety and behavioral guarantees. No annotations are present, so the description fully handles 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?

The description is two sentences, highly concise, and front-loaded with the key attribute 'Read-only'. Every phrase adds value without unnecessary words.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and output type (names and summaries) but omits output structure details like pagination or summary format. Given no output schema, a bit more detail would enhance completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description does not add further semantic context about limit, cursor, or filter beyond what the schema provides.

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 rule provider names and safe runtime summaries, explicitly noting it is read-only and for use with refresh_rule_provider. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_proxy_providers.

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 provides a clear usage context: use this to get provider names/summaries before calling refresh_rule_provider. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to similar listing tools.

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