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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It does state a key side-effect guarantee: no disk access. But it does not state whether the tool returns a boolean, error, or other result, or how invalid paths are handled.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and includes a meaningful safety qualifier.

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 description leaves out the return type, expected output, and how to distinguish a safe from unsafe path. Given the noisy parameter list and lack of an output schema, an agent would not have enough context to use the tool confidently.

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?

Although every parameter has a description, the schema exposes nine unrelated parameters with none required, and the description does not clarify which are actually relevant for a path safety check. This creates semantic ambiguity despite the 100% schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource 'path', and adds the useful constraint 'No disk access.' However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or normalize-url, and 'safe' is left vague.

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 file-path-ok instead of related tools, nor any conditions or examples. The only contextual note is 'No disk access,' which is a behavioral constraint rather than usage guidance.

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