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

The description discloses 'No disk access,' which is a useful safety trait, but it does not explain what 'safe' means (e.g., traversal checks, absolute paths) or what happens on invalid input. It also omits that the tool accepts many other parameter types, potentially misleading an agent into thinking only paths are handled. With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short.

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 brief and waste-free, stating the core action and a safety caveat in two short sentences. It does not over-elaborate, which is good for conciseness, though the brevity contributes to incompleteness in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to define 'safe,' explain the role of the non-path parameters, or indicate return behavior. An agent would be uncertain about valid inputs and expected results.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description, meeting the baseline. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as how parameters relate or whether they are alternative inputs. It simply repeats the schema's intent without clarifying the overall function.

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 clear verb and resource ('Check whether a path looks safe') and notes no disk access, which distinguishes it from disk-touching tools. However, it does not differentiate from sibling shape-checkers like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, and the schema's 9 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query) are entirely unexplained, muddying the actual scope.

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 for when to use this tool over alternatives. With siblings like browser-url-ok, github-repo-shape, and validate-json, an agent cannot tell which shape checker to pick. The description also fails to clarify whether the non-path parameters are supported or intended for other uses.

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