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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: no disk access, which prevents the assumption that this checks file existence or permissions. However, it doesn't specify the return contract (e.g., boolean/error) or whether other accepted fields are similarly shape-checked, leaving room for misinterpretation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler. The 'No disk access' qualifier is the only extra sentence and 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?

Although the schema describes each parameter, the tool accepts nine optional parameters and has no output schema, so the agent is left guessing which parameters to pass and what the result looks like. The description doesn't explain what makes a path safe, what happens with no arguments, or how the unrelated parameters relate to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'safe' notion to the path field and provides no additional meaning for the other eight parameters.

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 concrete action ('Check whether a path looks safe') and a clear resource, and the title plus 'path' property narrow it to file paths rather than URLs. It is not explicit about what 'safe' means, and the 9-parameter schema suggests a broader shape-checking behavior the description doesn't acknowledge.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given and no sibling tools are mentioned. The only usable hint is 'No disk access,' which implies a purely syntactic check but doesn't tell the agent when to choose this over URL/domain validators or how to treat the unrelated accepted parameters.

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