OnionLens Tor Tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but nothing states whether the result is a static reference list, a live enumeration, its size, or whether fixtures returned here must be resolved via the sibling tool. No output schema exists to cover the return shape.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, but structurally sound.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of truth about return values, and it only gestures at them with undefined terms like 'primary-source references' and 'controlled retrieval fixtures'. An agent finishing this call has no idea what it will receive or what to do with the sibling tools next.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here.

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 verb 'List' is clear and the object is narrowed to 'primary-source Tor integration references and controlled retrieval fixtures', but both phrases are domain jargon that leave the agent unsure what a returned item actually is. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling retrieval_fixture, which sounds like it operates on the same material.

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?

No condition for when to call this versus retrieval_fixture or validate_onion_address, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the entry-point/discovery call for the fixture workflow.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses determinism and UTF-8 encoding, but does not explicitly state that the operation is side-effect free or read-only, nor does it describe any other behavioral constraints.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant or wasted text. It immediately states the action and purpose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is only partially complete: it does not describe the shape or contents of the returned fixture, which an agent might need in order to parse or use it correctly. The intended use is clear, but the return characteristics are under-specified.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the UTF-8 encoding detail, which is relevant context, though no parameter semantics are needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('deterministic UTF-8 retrieval fixture') and adds the intended use ('for transport and parsing checks'). It is distinguishable from the sibling tools, though the term 'retrieval fixture' remains somewhat opaque about the actual content returned.

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 gives an implied usage context ('for transport and parsing checks') but does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that validation is offline and covers format, version and checksum, but it does not say what an invalid address produces (false vs. error vs. detail object), which is the key behavioral fact for a validation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause contributes (what is validated, which checks, and the offline behavior).

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 simple one-parameter validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate on inputs and scope but leaves the return semantics unspecified. An agent cannot tell from the description alone whether to expect a boolean, a structured result, or an exception on invalid input.

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%, but the description compensates by defining the single parameter as a Tor v3 address, which gives meaningful semantics beyond the bare 'string' type in the schema. It could still specify expected structure (e.g., 56-character base32 .onion), but the core meaning is conveyed.

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 states a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('Tor v3 address') and enumerates exactly what is checked: format, version and checksum. There is no ambiguity with the unrelated sibling tools.

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?

Use is only implied by the word 'Validate'; there is no explicit statement of when to call it (e.g., before connecting or submitting an address) or what it does not verify (e.g., reachability). The 'without a network request' clause hints at scope but is not framed as a usage condition.

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