tor_check_connection

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by explaining the temporary page mechanism and explicitly stating that the active page is unchanged, going beyond the generic annotation hints. It does not reveal potential network behavior or cleanup of the temporary page, but the added context is meaningful.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action ('Verify Tor') and then qualifies it with the key constraint, making it highly scannable and efficient.

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 zero-parameter, simple check tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states the purpose, the mechanism (temporary page), and the principal side-effect (no change to active page). No critical invocation-related information is missing.

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 input schema is empty (100% coverage by definition). The description correctly avoids parameter details, and per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is a 4.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Verify Tor'), describes the mechanism (temporary page), and notes the key side-effect (no active page change). This distinguishes it from sibling navigation or identity 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?

The description implies this is a safe check that doesn't disturb the current page, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like tor_new_identity or tor_navigate. The 'without changing the active page' suggests appropriateness for checks during active workflows, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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