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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions 'No disk access' but does not state what 'looks safe' means, whether it returns a boolean or error, or how it handles edge cases like empty or malformed paths.

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 very concise—two short sentences with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is easy to read and front-loads the core purpose.

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 too sparse for the provided schema's complexity. It offers no output schema, no criteria for 'safe,' and no explanation of the many irrelevant optional parameters. An agent would not know what to pass or what to expect in return.

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 all schema parameters have descriptions, most are unrelated to the tool's stated purpose (e.g., url, city, feed, zone, query). The description does not clarify that only 'path' is relevant or explain why the other parameters exist, creating significant confusion about how to call the tool.

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 a specific action ('Check whether a path looks safe') and the resource ('path'). It also notes 'No disk access,' which distinguishes it from actual file operations and from sibling tools that inspect URLs, domains, or other entities.

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?

The description does not explain when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or github-repo-shape. There is no mention of input expectations, common use cases, or criteria for safe paths.

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