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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'No disk access' is a valuable side-effect disclosure, and 'looks safe' signals that this is not an authoritative filesystem check. It does not describe return values or failure behavior, but the key operational trait is clearly stated.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the key limitation ('No disk access') is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a nine-property input schema, but the description does not state what the tool returns, that `path` is the operative parameter, or how 'safe' is determined. Agents may be unsure how to invoke it correctly or interpret the result.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond naming 'path', which is enough to identify the relevant field but does not compensate for the many unrelated-looking parameters in 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 names a concrete action ('Check whether') and resource ('a path'), and 'looks safe' clarifies this is a syntactic/safety check rather than an actual filesystem operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling shape-check tools, but the resource and qualifier make the core purpose clear.

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 when to use it: when you need to know whether a path is plausibly safe without touching disk. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving routing between sibling tools to inference.

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