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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'No disk access,' which is a useful safety trait, but it does not disclose what 'safe' means, whether it returns a boolean or a status, error handling, or any side effects. The description is too minimal to adequately inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the one statement.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and the key safety constraint. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, but for conciseness itself, it is well-structured and wastes no words.

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 nine parameters and no output schema, yet the description covers only one (path) and provides no information about return values, error conditions, or the purpose of the other parameters. It is severely incomplete for an agent to understand the full scope of the tool, especially given the mismatched schema. The description needs to explain why the other parameters exist and what the tool does with them.

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 all parameters. However, the description adds no additional meaning to any parameter; it only repeats the 'path' and 'no disk access' details already present in the schema. It ignores the other parameters entirely, failing to clarify why they exist or how they relate to the tool's purpose. The description adds no value beyond the schema, so it falls below the baseline of 3.

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 specific verb ('Check') and resource ('path') with a safety constraint ('looks safe', 'no disk access'), which is clear at a high level. However, it fails to acknowledge the other eight parameters in the schema (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query), creating ambiguity about the tool's actual scope. The name 'file-path-ok' implies focus on file paths, but the schema suggests a broader validation role, so the purpose is not fully unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools (e.g., browser-url-ok, domain-shape) or conditions for selection. The description only states what it does without context on when it is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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