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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'no disk access,' which is a useful safety property, but does not disclose whether it performs network access, what it returns, error behavior, or whether it is read-only. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded, which is good. However, it is under-specified, omitting critical details about the tool's behavior and scope. It is not appropriately sized for a tool with 10 optional parameters and no output schema; it is too sparse to be useful.

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 complexity of 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what 'safe' means, what the return value looks like, whether any side effects exist, or how to interpret the result. An agent has virtually no information to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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?

Although the schema provides 100% description coverage for all 10 parameters, the tool's name and description imply that only 'path' is relevant, yet the schema includes many unrelated parameters (e.g., 'ref', 'url', 'city', 'feed'). The description does not clarify that these are extraneous or that only 'path' is used, which can confuse an agent about which parameter to supply. This ambiguity detracts from the schema's otherwise complete parameter documentation.

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 states a clear verb ('Check') and resource ('a path'), and notes 'looks safe' and 'no disk access'. However, it does not define what 'safe' means, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser-url-ok' or 'domain-shape' that also perform shape/safety checks. The schema includes 10 unrelated parameters, which further obscures the actual scope of the tool.

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 alternatives. No context is given about the problem it solves, when it should be preferred, or when another tool like 'browser-url-ok' or 'domain-shape' would be more appropriate. The description offers no exclusions or conditions.

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