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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'No disk access,' which is a useful constraint, but it does not explain what 'looks safe' entails (e.g., syntactic validation, format checks, or pattern matching) or what happens on invalid input, leaving significant behavioral 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 a single, succinct sentence that avoids fluff and directly states the core action and constraint. It is appropriately brief for a tool of this apparent simplicity, though the brevity contributes to missing contextual details.

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 having a simple core function, the tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no context on how to invoke the tool, what inputs are expected, what 'safe' means, or how results are returned. The mismatch between the description (focusing on path) and the schema parameters (covering refs, urls, cities, etc.) makes the tool under-specified, leaving critical usage details unexplained.

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 description coverage is 100% because every parameter has a description, but those descriptions are generic and mismatched to the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name' for `ref`, 'HTTPS URL' for `url`). The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify which parameters are relevant for path safety checks or how they relate to `path`. Since the schema already provides descriptions, the baseline of 3 applies, with no additional value from the tool description.

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: to check whether a path looks safe, with the additional specification that it does not access the disk. This distinguishes it from tools that actually perform filesystem operations, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that might also validate paths in a non-disk manner.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or situations where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to guess its appropriate usage context.

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