clash.verge.preferences.inspect

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

The description is highly transparent: it declares read-only behavior, what it reads from (Adapter memory and verge.yaml), what it does not do (write, trigger refresh, etc.), and that sensitive fields are excluded. No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden and excels.

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 clear and well-structured, though it includes a version number ('v1.1-A') which is not essential. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds detail, making it easy to parse.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and what it excludes. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool inspects and returns, which goes beyond the empty 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 it is a read-only inspection tool for Clash Verge UI preferences, listing the categories (Basic, Theme, Layout, Hotkeys). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing read-only and no side effects.

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?

It explicitly states that it does not require write capability and does not trigger GUI refresh or persistence, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for writing or other inspection variants, though the sibling list implies them.

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