tor_exit_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The only behavior implied is 'get info', which is insufficient for safe AI invocation.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose and details, but it remains 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?

Given the simple interface (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basics. It mentions key return fields, but lacks context like default limit behavior (though schema says default: all) or pagination. Adequate for minimal viability.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes the 'limit' parameter adequately. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides—it only lists return fields, which are not part of the parameter.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed Tor exit node information', including specific data types (fingerprints, publish timestamps, exit addresses). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tor_exit_nodes' (simple list) and 'tor_exit_check' (single check).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with 'tor_exit_nodes' for simple listing or mention prerequisites. The many similar Tor-related siblings make this omission significant.

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