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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose a non-obvious trait (no disk access) and indicates the check is based on appearance rather than actual filesystem state. It does not explain what criteria make a path safe, how unsafe results are returned, or whether any other side effects can occur.

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 no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the key behavioral constraint follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 being a simple-looking tool, the schema exposes nine optional parameters and no output schema, so an agent needs more guidance about which parameter to use and what result to expect. The description only covers path and does not address return values or the meaning of 'safe,' making it incomplete for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the path parameter. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that path is the focus, which does not exceed the baseline.

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 clear action and subject: check whether a path looks safe, with the boundary 'No disk access.' It aligns with the path parameter description 'File path to check' and stands apart from URL-focused siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from.

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 disk access' implies this is a lightweight syntactic check, which gives some context for when to use it. However, it does not state when to prefer this over alternative checker tools or when not to use it, leaving the usage guidance implicit.

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