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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'No disk access' is a useful, non-obvious behavioral guarantee, but the description does not explain what 'safe' means, whether it returns a boolean, or what edge cases it handles.

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 no filler. Both sentences earn their place: one states the core purpose, and the other gives a critical non-obvious safety guarantee.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does not specify return values, what 'safe' means, or how to select among the many schema fields. The odd breadth of the input schema makes this thinness more costly, as an agent could easily pass the wrong parameter.

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 parameter schemas themselves document each field. The tool description adds minimal parameter meaning, only implying that the `path` parameter is the relevant one, which is already clear from 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 clearly states a specific action ('Check whether a path looks safe') and the resource ('a path'), and the 'No disk access' note adds useful scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or wiki-title-ok, but the file-path focus is apparent from the name and wording.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer that this is the right choice for local/string-based path safety checks rather than URL or network-validating tools.

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