clash.runtime.refresh_rule_provider

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the per-provider lock preventing concurrent refresh, the need for light confirmation, and that it does not modify persistent config. This goes beyond the schema but could still elaborate on lock behavior, auth, or side effects.

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?

Three sentences, each conveying meaningful information without redundancy. The purpose is stated first, followed by key behavioral details. No filler or 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?

For a simple refresh tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral traits (lock, confirmation, persistence). It is complete enough for an AI agent to use correctly, though it could mention typical use cases or results.

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 coverage is 100%, providing descriptions for both 'name' and 'confirmed'. The description adds marginal value by stating 'by name' and 'Light confirmation required', but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 action ('Refresh a rule provider by name'), specifies the resource type ('rule provider'), and distinguishes it from the similar sibling tool 'clash.runtime.refresh_proxy_provider' which refreshes proxy providers. The mention of per-provider lock adds specificity.

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 notes that 'Light confirmation required' (via the confirmed parameter) and that it does not modify persistent config, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like 'clash.runtime.refresh_proxy_provider' or other operations. No when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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