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

The only behavioral disclosure is 'No disk access,' which is a safety note. There is no mention of side effects, permissions, or other behaviors. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to disclose more than one aspect.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient. The structure is simple and straightforward, though it omits necessary context about the parameters.

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 mismatch between the description and the input schema, the agent cannot correctly understand how to invoke the tool. The presence of 9 unrelated parameters with no explanation of their relevance makes the tool incomplete for practical use.

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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions, but most are clearly mismatched with the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'ref' as 'Git ref name', 'city' as 'City name for a public weather hint'). Only 'path' is relevant. The descriptions are detailed but irrelevant, adding confusion rather than clarity.

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 ('Check whether a path looks safe') and resource ('path'), but it does not align with the actual parameters, which are mostly unrelated to paths. This creates ambiguity about the tool's true scope, though the core purpose is still discernible.

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 siblings. The description lacks any mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to similar tools like 'browser-url-ok' or 'fetch-status', leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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