Three tools present with basic descriptions and minimal input schemas. All tools have descriptions (10-60 chars), but descriptions lack depth on WHEN to use them, prerequisites, and consequences. Input schemas are present but sparse: only 1-2 parameters per tool with minimal type info. No output schemas documented. No error handling guidance. Tools are read-only (low risk) but lack the structure and detail expected of production tools. Naming is clear (validate_*) but descriptions are too terse to guide LLM selection effectively.

• Expand each tool description to 100 - 200 characters. Example for validate_file_path: 'Checks if a file path is contained within the allowed root directory. Returns is_safe (boolean), target_path (resolved absolute path), and violation code if path traversal detected. Call this before any file operation to prevent sandbox escape.'
• Document output schemas explicitly. For validate_file_path, specify: {is_safe: boolean, target_path: string, violation: string|null}. For validate_domain: {is_safe: boolean, domain: string, violation: string|null}.
• Enhance parameter descriptions with format and constraint info. E.g., 'target_path (string): Relative or absolute file path to validate. May contain .. or symlinks; will be resolved and checked against allowed_root_dir.'
• Add error recovery guidance. E.g., 'If violation is PATH_TRAVERSAL_DETECTED, the requested path escapes the sandbox. Suggest an alternative path within allowed_root_dir or reject the operation.'
• Document the intended orchestration pattern. Add a server-level description explaining: 'Call validate_file_path before file operations, validate_domain before network calls, and validate_command_safety before executing shell commands. All three must return is_safe=true for the operation to proceed.'