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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and 'No disk access' is a meaningful behavioral disclosure that tells the agent the call has no filesystem side effects. 'Looks safe' also signals a shape/heuristic check rather than a guarantee about actual file security, though the exact safety criteria are not disclosed.

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?

Two terse sentences with the essential purpose and side-effect profile front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

Adequate for a simple validator, but gaps remain: there is no output schema, and the description does not state the return format or what 'safe' means. The schema's 'required: 0' and unrelated optional properties also make it unclear that a path argument is expected.

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 met: the schema already documents each parameter, including 'File path to check'. The description does not add parameter-level detail, and with 9 optional parameters it fails to clarify that 'path' is the relevant one for this tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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 names a specific operation ('check whether a path looks safe') and adds a key clarifying detail that the check is purely syntactic ('No disk access'). It differentiates from URL, title, and key validators by focusing on 'path', though it does not explicitly name an alternative or define what 'safe' means.

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 about when to prefer this tool over sibling validators such as url-ok, wiki-title-ok, or jira-key-shape. The only implicit cue is the word 'path', which leaves the agent to infer the boundary of the tool without any explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.

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