rotate_identity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the two core behaviors (request new Tor circuit, rotate User-Agent) and the return dictionary, which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., Tor must be running), or whether this affects subsequent operations, leaving notable gaps.

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 extremely concise: two sentences for the action, a structured Args list, and a Returns line. Every element serves a purpose, and the action is front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter tool, the description adequately covers the operation, parameters, and return format. It omits operational prerequisites or warnings about side effects, but the presence of an output schema likely covers return details, so the description is nearly complete despite these minor gaps.

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, so the description must compensate. The Args section restates the parameter names ('Tor control port', 'Tor control password') and includes the default for port, which is already in the schema. This adds minimal semantic value beyond what the parameter names imply.

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 ('request new Tor circuit and rotate User-Agent') and the resource ('identity'), making the purpose specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like tor_new_identity, so it falls short of the top score.

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. The only hint is the action itself, which implies usage, but without specific conditions, exclusions, or mention of alternative tools like tor_new_identity, the agent lacks decision-critical context.

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