tor_exit_check

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

The description discloses that the tool relies on a cached exit node list, which is a useful behavioral trait affecting data freshness. It does not mention output format, error behavior, or access requirements, but for a simple read-only check the cache note adds some value beyond the schema.

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 sentence that immediately states the purpose and the cached data source, with no filler words or redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param), but there is no output schema or annotations. The description clarifies the purpose and data source but does not state what the response looks like. Given the simplicity, this is an acceptable but not complete description.

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 input schema already fully describes the 'ip' parameter, and the description adds little beyond restating 'specific IP address'. However, schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'check' and clearly identifies the resource (a specific IP address) and the condition (known Tor exit node). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tor_exit_nodes or tor_exit_details, which likely list or detail nodes.

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 use when an agent has a particular IP address to validate, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. No alternatives are named, though the specificity of 'specific IP address' gives context.

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