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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no details about the return value, error behavior, or side effects beyond the explicit 'No disk access.' The agent cannot anticipate what the tool outputs.

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 consists of two short, direct sentences with no fluff. It is highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

The description conveys the essential purpose but lacks any information about the output format (e.g., boolean, error messages) or behavior in edge cases. It is minimally sufficient for a simple check tool but not complete.

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?

The only relevant parameter, 'path', is well described ('File path to check; no disk access'), but the schema inexplicably includes eight other unrelated parameters with plausible descriptions. This clutter undermines the clarity of which parameter is actually used and misleads the agent.

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 the tool's verb ('Check') and resource ('whether a path looks safe'), and distinguishes it from sibling 'ok' checks. However, the schema includes many irrelevant parameters (ref, city, feed, etc.) which adds ambiguity about the tool's actual scope.

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?

The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., before reading a file, or when to prefer other 'shape' checks). The only guidance is 'No disk access,' which is a constraint, not a usage condition.

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