check_anonymity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses output fields but does not mention safety behavior, side effects, or external network calls. This leaves the agent uncertain whether the tool makes outbound requests or is strictly local.

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, clear structure, and no redundant text. The output description adds useful details without bloat.

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 tool with an output schema, the description explains the check scope and return values. It could mention prerequisites or usage context, but for this simple tool it is largely 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?

There are zero parameters, so the description inherently cannot add parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies due to no parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource 'current anonymity level', specifying IP exposure, DNS leaks, and proxy headers. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like proxy_check and tor_check by focusing on the overall anonymity assessment.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as proxy_check or tor_check. The description implies its usage but does not state scenarios, exclusions, or conditions.

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