clash.runtime.test_proxy_delay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'Auto-allowed' but does not clarify side effects (e.g., making network requests) or whether it modifies state. The return of delay and jitter is mentioned but the format is unspecified.

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 extremely concise with two front-loaded sentences, no redundant information, and every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description covers return values (median delay and jitter). It mentions predefined targets and multiple samples, but could be more explicit about the return structure and units.

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% and the description adds context like 'multiple samples' and 'predefined test targets', but does not elaborate on parameter formats or behaviors beyond what the schema already 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 'Test delay for a specific proxy' with a specific verb and resource, and details that it uses multiple samples and returns median delay and jitter. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like clash.optimize.health_checks, which may also test proxy performance.

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 mentions 'Uses predefined test targets only (no arbitrary URL)' which provides a negative condition (when not to use), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites like proxy existence.

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