set_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It goes some way by defining what each mode actually does (rule-based routing vs global proxy vs direct), which is genuinely behavioral rather than a name restatement. However, it says nothing about persistence, whether the switch takes effect immediately, connection interruption, or configuration requirements.

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?

A single line, front-loaded with the action, followed by a compact enumeration of the three values. Every token carries information; nothing is padding.

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 one-parameter enum tool the description covers the value space well, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves out the behavioral facts an agent needs (does the change persist? does it apply live?). Adequate but with clear gaps given zero structured support.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare enum — and it does, translating each of rule/global/direct into its meaning for the kernel. This is exactly the value the schema lacks. It stops short of stating the parameter name explicitly or any default/fallback behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('切换内核运行模式' = switch kernel running mode) and immediately disambiguates the operation by defining all three mode values. An agent can see this is a mode-setter, distinct from siblings like set_tun, toggle_system_proxy, and switch_proxy, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 explains what each mode means but gives no guidance on when to switch modes, which sibling to use instead (e.g., set_tun vs toggle_system_proxy vs set_mode), or any preconditions. The agent must infer all usage context from the mode semantics alone.

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