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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'No disk access,' which is a safety guarantee but does not describe return values, whether the operation is read-only, what happens on an unsafe path, or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral details unstated.

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 sentence, making it highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is almost too sparse; while conciseness is good, it sacrifices necessary detail. It earns a 4 for efficiency but not a 5 because it omits key context.

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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not clarify which parameters are relevant or ignored, what the expected input is, or what the result indicates. The agent cannot determine how to invoke it correctly or interpret the outcome without additional assumptions.

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 schema provides detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters, including notes on when they are discarded. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already covers, but it does not contradict it either. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('check') and resource ('path'), and notes the safety aspect ('looks safe'). However, it is vague about what constitutes 'safe' and does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'browser-url-ok' or 'domain-shape' that also perform shape/safety checks. It is not a tautology, but it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it without relying on the schema.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for file paths specifically, nor does it exclude URLs, hostnames, or other entities. There is no explicit or implicit direction for selecting this tool over its siblings.

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