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

The description explicitly mentions 'No disk access', which is a positive transparency statement about its non-destructive nature. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors such as side effects, return values, or error handling.

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, consisting of a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and a key constraint. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 is incomplete given the tool's complexity. It does not explain what 'safe' means, what output to expect, or why the many other parameters exist. The lack of context leaves users unsure how to properly invoke the 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?

The description only mentions 'a path' but does not clarify that the 'path' parameter is the relevant one. The input schema includes many irrelevant parameters with misleading descriptions (e.g., 'ref' as Git ref, 'json' as JSON text), and the description adds no clarity to resolve this confusion.

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 the tool's purpose: check whether a path looks safe without disk access. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes 'safe', leaving some ambiguity about the exact criteria.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does, without any contextual or comparative information.

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