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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'No disk access', which is a useful guarantee, but it fails to explain the tool's behavior with respect to its 9 parameters. The description only mentions a path, yet the schema includes many unrelated fields (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query). The tool appears to only act on 'path', but the description does not disclose that the other parameters are ignored or irrelevant, which is misleading. It also does not state what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, status message).

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences, and the core purpose is front-loaded. There is no wasted verbiage. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification; it is efficient but leaves out critical context. Still, for what it states, it is well-structured and to the point.

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. The description only covers the path concept and does not explain the role of the other 8 parameters, the return value, or any constraints. An agent cannot reliably call this tool because it does not know what to expect as output or how to handle the non-path parameters. This is highly incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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 each parameter is described in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. However, the tool's description adds no semantic value beyond the schema; it only repeats the path check. More critically, the tool is named 'file-path-ok' but has 9 parameters, and the description does not clarify that only 'path' is relevant or how the others are treated. This creates confusion about parameter roles and reduces the effectiveness of the schema descriptions. The description should have explained the relevance or irrelevance of the extra parameters.

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 a specific verb (check) and resource (path). It distinguishes itself from network or URL tools by explicitly saying 'path' and 'No disk access', which implies a local file path check. However, it does not name or contrast any sibling tools, so it lacks explicit differentiation from similar shape-checking siblings like browser-url-ok or domain-shape.

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 mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. The only hint is 'No disk access', which implies safety but does not help the agent decide between this and other validation tools like validate-json or domain-shape. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.

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