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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'No disk access,' which is a useful safety trait, but it fails to explain what 'safe' means, what the return value is, or how failures are handled. It also does not address why the schema contains nine parameters when the description focuses only on 'path,' leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 with no fluff: two short sentences that front-load the purpose and a critical behavioral note. It earns points for efficiency, though it may be too terse given the tool's apparent complexity with multiple 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description explains only the 'path' aspect. It does not describe what the tool returns, how to interpret the result, why the other parameters exist, or what 'looks safe' means. This is critically incomplete for an agent to use the tool correctly, especially given the mismatch between the description and the broad parameter set.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it does not clarify the role of the non-path parameters or how they relate to the stated purpose. Per the baseline for high coverage, a 3 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 clearly states the tool checks whether a path looks safe, with the key clarification that it performs no disk access. This is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or domain-shape, though the name 'file-path-ok' strongly implies its 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where it should be preferred or excluded, nor does it reference sibling tools. The 'No disk access' hint implies it is a safe, non-invasive check, but there is no explicit usage context.

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