tor_scrape_onion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses a key prerequisite (running Tor daemon) and the structured return data, but it does not address potential issues like timeouts, error handling, or privacy implications of fetching a .onion site. It is sufficient for a read-only scrape operation but lacks depth.

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 is well-structured and front-loaded with the action ('Fetch and parse'), followed by the output summary and a prerequisite. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core function, return values, and a critical dependency. However, it does not explain behavior if the Tor daemon is unavailable or provide any fallback/error guidance, which is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description for the sole parameter 'url' already states it is 'The .onion URL to scrape,' which is 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so the baseline score 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 specific verbs 'fetch and parse' with a clear resource (.onion site) and states the output scope: 'page title, all links, and visible body text.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tor_fetch_onion, which likely returns raw content, and tor_search_onion, which searches.

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 by mentioning the need for a running Tor daemon, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like tor_fetch_onion. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, only a prerequisite, so the guidance remains implicit.

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