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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'No disk access,' which is useful, but it does not describe the return format (e.g., boolean, error details), edge cases (empty path, absolute vs relative), or whether other parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) are supported. The description gives a partial behavior profile only.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a key behavioral fact. It is appropriately brief for the limited scope it covers, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 only addresses one aspect ('path') and provides no return information. The mismatch between the description (path-only) and the schema (many unrelated fields) creates confusion about the tool's actual scope. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The schema itself provides clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'File path to check; no disk access'). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema carries the burden, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' It also adds a non-obvious constraint, 'No disk access,' which clarifies it is a syntactic check. However, it does not differentiate from sibling shape-checking tools like browser-url-ok or domain-shape, and 'safe' is undefined (e.g., path traversal, invalid characters).

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of siblings, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the large set of sibling shape-checking tools (browser-url-ok, domain-shape, etc.), the lack of differentiation leaves an agent to guess which tool fits.

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