tor_exit_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the type of information returned (fingerprints, publish timestamps, exit addresses), which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, mention any rate limits, or describe the default behavior of the 'limit' parameter (though the schema covers this). It falls short of rich behavioral disclosure.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and key output fields. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly scannable and 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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context about what the tool returns. It covers the main purpose and data attributes. However, it lacks context about how this tool relates to sibling Tor tools and leaves the agent to infer when to choose it over alternatives, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'limit', which includes its purpose and default. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies. No extra semantics are needed beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Get detailed Tor exit node information' with specific data elements (fingerprints, publish timestamps, exit addresses). This provides a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'tor_exit_nodes', relying on the word 'detailed' rather than naming alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., tor_exit_nodes, tor_exit_check). The description simply states what it does without indicating context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Users must infer usage from the tool name and vague 'detailed' qualifier.

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