browser_use_tor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the launch action and Tor routing but does not mention possible side effects, prerequisites, speed implications, or what happens to the slot. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and destination, with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes 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?

The tool is simple (1 optional param, output schema present), and the description covers the core purpose and context. However, it lacks usage alternatives and behavioral caveats, leaving the description somewhat under-specified for a launch tool that may have network implications.

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 schema description covers 100% of the single parameter (slot) with a clear explanation, and the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Launch a browser slot through Tor') with a clear resource and purpose ('.onion browsing'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_use_residential or browser_use_tunnel by specifying Tor and .onion.

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 provides a clear use case ('.onion browsing') which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, lacking exclusion guidance.

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