clash.runtime.select_proxy

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries transparency. It reveals two operating modes (atomic sync vs runtime-only) and mentions a confirmation parameter. However, it does not detail side effects like connection behavior or error handling, leaving the agent somewhat uncertain about what happens after the switch.

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 three sentences, each adding significant information: main action, behavioral variation, and parameter requirement. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no unnecessary text.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, including the two modes and the confirmation. It is nearly complete but could mention the return value or typical response to be fully self-contained.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds 'Light confirmation required' which ties to the 'confirmed' parameter, but does not provide further semantic enrichment beyond the schema's descriptions of group and proxy.

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 starts with 'Switch proxy in a Selector group,' which is a clear verb-resource pair. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'clash.runtime.test_proxy_delay' or 'clash.runtime.list_proxy_groups' by focusing on the selection action within a group.

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 for switching a proxy in a selector group, which is distinct from other runtime tools. It does not explicitly state when to use the fallback versus full synchronization mode, nor does it list alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for selection among siblings.

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