darknet_readiness

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, open-world profile. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it clarifies this is only a local/config check and does not authenticate to providers or certify upstream availability, which prevents false expectations of a live connectivity test. It stops short of describing what the readiness result looks like.

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?

Two tight sentences with the positive scope front-loaded and the negative scope immediately after. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 parameterless diagnostic with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it inspects and its limits. It would be fully complete only with a hint about the readiness signal it returns, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No schema detail is lost.

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 names a specific verb and two concrete resources: registered source configuration and the local Tor SOCKS proxy. It is distinguishable from siblings like darknet_list_sources or tor_status, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the closely related tor_status/darknet_investigate 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?

Usage is implied (a pre-flight readiness check before running darknet queries), and the closing clause usefully scopes out what it does NOT do. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings like tor_status or darknet_investigate, so the agent must infer the context.

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