tor_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it checks 'running and accessible' and returns 'connectivity status,' which is transparent about the check itself. However, it doesn't specify the return format (e.g., boolean vs object), leaving some ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and purpose. Every word adds value—no fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and expected result. It could benefit from a bit more detail on what 'connectivity status' entails (e.g., active, failed, timeout), but it's sufficiently complete for a simple status check.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but that's unnecessary. Baseline for no parameters is 4, which is appropriate.

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 ('local Tor SOCKS5 proxy daemon'), stating it returns connectivity status for .onion fetching. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tor_fetch_onion and tor_scrape_onion, which perform operations rather than status checks.

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 the tool is used to verify Tor connectivity before attempting .onion operations, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is intuitive given the sibling list, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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