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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The statement 'No disk access' is a useful safety guarantee, but it does not disclose what the tool returns, how safety is determined, or how errors are signaled.

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 two short sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the safety point, 'No disk access', is a valuable second sentence.

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 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description does not explain how the agent should call the tool meaningfully. It fails to clarify that only the 'path' field is relevant, while the other schema fields appear unrelated and are left unexplained in the tool description.

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 the baseline is 3; each parameter has some schema description. The tool description itself adds no semantic detail about the parameters, and it does not clarify the role of the nine optional fields relative to the stated 'path' purpose.

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 specific action ('check whether a path looks safe') on a specific resource ('path'), and the tool name reinforces it. However, it does not differentiate itself from shape-checking siblings such as normalize-url, domain-shape, or wiki-title-ok beyond the word 'path'.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description never mentions alternative tools or the conditions under which file-path-ok should be chosen over a URL or other shape checker, leaving the agent to infer the valid usage context.

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