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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The only behavioral note is 'No disk access,' but it does not mention side effects, permissions, error behavior, or return format. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 very concise at one sentence, and it front-loads the core action. There is no wasted text. However, the brevity comes at the cost of crucial details, so it earns a high score for conciseness but not a perfect one.

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 has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of the extra parameters, the meaning of 'safe,' or any expected result, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 has 100% coverage on parameters, but the descriptions are generic and largely unrelated to the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'ref', 'url', 'city', and 'feed' have descriptions that seem mismatched with 'path safety,' and the description does not clarify which parameters are relevant or how they interact.

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 the verb 'check' and the resource 'path safety', giving a basic purpose. However, it does not specify what 'safe' means or the expected output, and it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'browser-url-ok' or 'fetch-status' that also perform safety checks.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many related tools, but the description gives no conditions, examples, or contrasts, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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