tor_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It honestly states the tool checks local daemon accessibility and returns connectivity status. It does not specify the return format (e.g., boolean or object), but given the simplicity, this is acceptable. No behavioral contradictions.

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 sentences, 16 words, no unnecessary information. The verb 'Check' is front-loaded, and every word earns its place. Extremely concise and well-structured.

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 simple probe tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it checks local Tor daemon and returns connectivity status. It could mention expected prerequisites (e.g., Tor installed) but is otherwise complete.

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 schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Check' and identifies the resource as 'local Tor SOCKS5 proxy daemon'. It specifies the purpose ('Returns connectivity status for .onion fetching'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like tor_fetch_onion or tor_exit_nodes that deal with actual onion fetching or exit node details.

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 usage context: check before fetching .onion sites. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes the intended use clear. A more explicit statement about prerequisites or alternatives would elevate the score.

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