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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only one behavioral trait: 'No disk access'. It does not describe what 'safe' means, the return format (e.g., boolean, error), or what happens with the other eight parameters in the schema (which are described as 'discarded' in the schema but not in the tool description). This is a significant gap for a tool that accepts nine parameters and has no output schema.

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, efficient sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the core action and the key safety property. For its brevity, it is well-structured and easy to parse. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 but the description only addresses 'a path'. It does not explain the purpose of the other parameters (e.g., ref, url, city, etc.) or whether they are ignored, which is confusing given the tool's name and description. There is no output schema, so the description should describe the return value or result, but it does not. For a tool with this schema complexity, the description is insufficient for an agent to know how to invoke it correctly beyond the 'path' parameter.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for all nine parameters, each with a clear description. The tool description itself adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond naming 'a path', which aligns with the 'path' parameter. Since the schema already documents all parameters, the description does not need to repeat them, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify which parameter is the primary one for this tool, but the schema makes it obvious.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('a path'), and adds a critical safety constraint ('No disk access'). The tool name 'file-path-ok' aligns with this, and the sibling tools like 'browser-url-ok' and 'domain-shape' make the distinction obvious: this is about file paths, not URLs or domains. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that perform similar 'shape' or 'ok' checks (e.g., 'browser-url-ok', 'figma-url-shape'). It does not state conditions for use, exclusions, or mention any alternatives. An agent must infer from the name and schema that it is specifically for file-path safety, but there is no explicit routing.

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