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 does state 'No disk access,' which is a useful safety signal, but it does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it can throw errors, what criteria define 'safe,' or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool that performs a check, this is a significant gap.

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 exceptionally concise, with exactly two short sentences that both carry meaning. The keyword 'path' appears first and the safety note is quickly stated. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, though it could afford slightly more detail without becoming bloated.

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 100% schema coverage, the description is incomplete for an agent. There is no output schema, so the return value is not explained. The tool has nine parameters yet the description only references 'path,' and the meaning of 'looks safe' is undefined. An agent cannot determine what result to expect or how to interpret the tool's output.

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%, so the structured schema already fully documents all nine parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning 'path,' and given the large parameter list, it does not help clarify which parameters are actually relevant to the path check. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 a specific action ('Check') on a specific resource ('whether a path looks safe'), and the added 'No disk access' distinguishes it from URL-checking siblings like browser-url-ok and playwright-url-ok. However, 'safe' remains vague, leaving the exact nature of the check ambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, and fetch-status clearly relate to URL handling, but the description does not explicitly say 'use this for path strings, not URLs' or mention any exclusions. The only hint is 'No disk access,' which implies a static check but does not help with routing.

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