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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'No disk access,' which is a key safety trait that distinguishes this from tools that might touch the filesystem. However, it does not disclose what 'looks safe' means, the return format, or whether it validates syntax or existence, leaving some ambiguity.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the primary action and immediately notes the key behavioral constraint (no disk access). Every word earns its place.

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. Although the schema documents all parameters, the description only addresses 'path' and ignores the other 8 parameters, leaving an agent uncertain whether they are relevant or how to use them. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the other inputs relate to the check, creating a significant gap.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, achieving 100% coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, and it does not explain why a file-path checker accepts parameters like 'ref', 'url', 'city', etc. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description fails to clarify the role of the extra parameters.

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.' It names the specific resource (a path) and the action (check), making it distinct from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, which focus on URLs and shapes. The name 'file-path-ok' reinforces the purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-checking tools. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference any alternatives. An agent would have to infer from the name alone, which is insufficient given the large sibling set.

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