validate_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that no read/write operation is performed and specifies the safety checks (traversal, workspace boundary, symlink escape). It does not mention return format, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 concise sentence followed by a minimal args list, with no unnecessary information. Every part adds value and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple one-parameter validation tool with an output schema, the description covers the tool's scope and safety guarantees. The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, making this complete.

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?

The schema provides no description for 'path' (0% coverage), so the description adds essential semantics: 'relative to the workspace root.' This compensates for the schema gap, though it doesn't provide examples or additional constraints beyond being relative.

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 path validity and safety (no traversal, stays within workspace, no symlink escape) without performing read/write operations. This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from sibling file operation tools, though it doesn't explicitly name validate_workspace.

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 implies usage as a pre-check for path operations ('without performing any read/write operation'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like validate_workspace or file operations. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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