clash.verge.configure_ports

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses the two-step confirmation process and inclusion of port listening verification. It does not detail failure modes or permissions, but provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Two concise sentences: first defines purpose and scope, second provides critical usage guidance. No unnecessary words, efficiently packed with information.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, workflow, and a behavioral hint (verification). Could elaborate on what 'port listening verification' entails or side effects, but overall adequate.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining the strong confirmation workflow and the role of confirmNonce, which is not fully captured in the schema's descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it configures proxy ports in config.yaml with a specific owner (verge_clash_base). The verb 'Configure' is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like configure_tun or configure_dns_override.

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?

Explicitly describes the strong confirmation workflow: call first without confirmed to get nonce, then with confirmed and nonce. Mentions port listening verification, guiding the agent on the expected usage pattern.

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