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

The description discloses that there is 'no disk access', which is a useful side-effect disclosure, but it fails to mention what the tool actually does with the path (e.g., returns a boolean, validates syntax) or whether it performs any other checks. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not meet it.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently rich. It front-loads the core purpose but omits essential details, making it more of a stub than a well-structured description.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers a fraction of the behavior. It does not explain the purpose of the other parameters, the return value, or edge cases. This is critically incomplete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. However, the tool description only references 'path', leaving the other eight parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query) unexplained. The agent cannot infer why these exist or how they relate to path safety.

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 verb ('check') and resource ('path'), but the meaning of 'safe' is vague. It distinguishes from siblings like browser-url-ok and domain-shape by mentioning path, but does not specify what constitutes safe (e.g., traversal, absolute/relative, extension).

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-check tools (browser-url-ok, domain-shape, jira-key-shape, etc.). An agent has no context to select this tool over others.

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