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

The description discloses that no disk access occurs, and several parameter descriptions note values are discarded. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not explain return behavior, errors, or other possible side effects.

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 and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant sentences. Every word contributes to the core message.

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?

Despite the terse description, the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance. The meaning of 'safe', the expected return value, and how the unrelated parameters relate to the tool's purpose are all missing, making it incomplete for an agent.

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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema and each one adds semantic context, such as 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' and 'File path to check; no disk access'. The descriptions are clear individually, though their relationship to a path-safety tool is unexplained.

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 action ('Check whether a path looks safe') and the key constraint ('No disk access'), which distinguishes it from disk-accessing tools. However, 'safe' is left undefined and the large set of unrelated parameters makes the exact scope less crisp.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, and no conditions or alternatives are mentioned. The 'No disk access' note is useful but not enough to orient an agent.

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