tor_navigate

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

Annotations already indicate that the tool is not read-only, is open-world, and is non-idempotent, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds value by restricting the URL scheme to HTTP(S) and highlighting .onion support, which is a behavioral constraint. However, it does not describe what happens during navigation (e.g., waiting for page load, handling errors, or timeouts), so additional context would have been useful.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and provides a key feature (.onion support). Every word adds value with no extraneous content.

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 relatively simple (navigate to a URL), and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description leaves gaps such as the meaning of the timeout parameter, whether it waits for full page load, and any prerequisites (e.g., an active Tor session). Given the richness of the sibling tools and the annotations, this is adequate but could be more helpful.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description mentions 'URL' which aligns with the 'url' parameter but adds no meaningful info beyond the parameter name. The 'timeout' parameter is completely unexplained, and the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 action (Navigate) and the resource (HTTP(S) URL), with an important differentiator (.onion supported). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tor_back/forward/refresh, which are about navigating the current session, whereas this explicitly targets a new URL.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever the goal is to load a specific HTTP(S) URL. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer the appropriate scenario. There is no mention of when NOT to use it, but the action is specific.

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