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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful behavior ('No disk access') implying a safe, read-only operation, but it does not explain what 'safe' means, how validation behaves, or what the return value is. This is minimal coverage for a tool that presumably performs a check.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Check whether a path looks safe'), and the behavioral note ('No disk access') is placed second. 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?

The tool has nine parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description only addresses the path parameter. It does not explain the purpose of the other eight parameters, how they relate to the tool, or what the expected output is. This is a critical omission for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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 documents every parameter, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema; it does not mention the path parameter or any of the other eight parameters. It neither enhances nor conflicts with the schema, so a neutral score is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Check') and resource ('path'), and clarifies it checks for safety without disk access. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser-url-ok (URLs) and domain-shape (domains), so an agent can tell it apart.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explicitly state 'use for file paths only' or mention any exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer the intended use from the name alone.

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