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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explicitly disclose 'No disk access,' which is a meaningful safety-relevant trait for a path-validation tool. However, it does not disclose whether it makes network calls, what it returns, how it handles invalid input, or what 'safe' means in terms of path syntax.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. 'Check whether a path looks safe' states the core purpose immediately, and 'No disk access' adds essential behavioral context without padding. It is an exemplary concise description.

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 the schema being fairly rich, the description is incomplete in critical ways: it does not define what counts as a safe path, does not indicate the return type or success/failure behavior, and does not explain how the many non-path parameters relate to the tool. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent would not have enough information to correctly invoke this tool in ambiguous cases.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all seven parameters, so the baseline for description-added value is 3. The description names 'path' as the focus, but it does not clarify why the schema also accepts ref, url, city, feed, host, and json, nor whether these are alternative inputs, ignored values, or unrelated fields. Overall, the description adds little beyond the schema's own 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 uses a clear verb and resource ('Check whether a path looks safe'), and the tool name reinforces the intended operation. It is distinguishable from sibling shape-checkers because it targets paths rather than URLs, domains, or wiki titles. However, 'looks safe' is left vague and does not define what criteria are checked.

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 sibling shape-checkers such as normalize-url, domain-shape, or wiki-title-ok. The only contextual hint is 'No disk access,' which implies a non-filesystem-shape check, but it does not state when this tool should be preferred or what input types it is not appropriate for.

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