Check sensitive file exposure

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them by stating that only HEAD requests are issued and that file contents are never read, which tells the agent this is a low-impact, non-exfiltrating probe. It stops short of describing error handling, timeouts, or what a 'candidate' result looks like.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (method, scope, non-invasive nature) are front-loaded. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with 0% schema description coverage and a required url parameter that is never discussed, the definition leaves an agent guessing about input semantics for an otherwise simple two-parameter tool.

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 0% and neither parameter (url, paths) is mentioned in the description. The phrase 'small curated set of high-risk paths' only loosely gestures at how the optional paths array behaves and says nothing about the required url, URL format, or the 20-item cap.

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 names a specific mechanism (HEAD requests), a specific target class (a small curated set of high-risk paths) and a specific output (candidates, not contents), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with the closest sibling, web_directory_scan, which prevents a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus web_directory_scan, http_probe, or robots_txt_analysis, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The 'small curated set' wording hints that this is a quick targeted check rather than a full brute force, but that inference is left entirely to the reader.

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