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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It does add a meaningful trait: no disk access, making this a non-side-effecting syntactic check. But it does not describe what 'safe' means, what the return value looks like, or how invalid paths are reported.

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 two short sentences with the purpose first and the key constraint second. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 core action and a critical non-effect are stated, which is adequate for a simple tool. However, the definition lacks an explicit return-value contract, a definition of 'safe', and any routing guidance among sibling tools. The unusually broad schema with many optional parameters also goes unaddressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, though the schema already documents 'path' as the file path to check. The presence of eight unrelated optional parameters is confusing, and the description does not clarify that only 'path' is relevant.

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 identifies the resource ('a path') and the action ('Check whether ... looks safe'), and the 'No disk access' note distinguishes it from filesystem-touching tools. However, 'looks safe' is vague about what safety criteria are applied, so the agent only gets a general sense of the check.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling shape-check tools such as browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or wiki-title-ok. 'No disk access' implies it is not for real filesystem checks, but no alternative is named and no usage conditions are provided.

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