Four tools with clear safety-focused purpose and reasonable descriptions (avg 150 chars). All have input schemas with type definitions. However, critical gaps: (1) check_file_access lacks 'operation' in required array despite being essential for distinguishing read/write/delete intent; (2) descriptions are functional but lack LLM-optimized guidance on WHEN to call each tool vs alternatives; (3) no output schemas documented, LLMs cannot predict response structure; (4) error handling descriptions missing, no guidance on what 'ask' vs 'block' means operationally or how to recover; (5) no parameter descriptions for 'operation' enum values. Naming is strong (verb_noun pattern). Composition is good, each tool has single responsibility. Security-focused design is appropriate for the domain.

• Add 'operation' to check_file_access required array. Currently optional but semantically required, LLMs will omit it, causing ambiguous decisions.
• Document output schemas for all tools. E.g., check_file_access returns {decision: 'allow'|'ask'|'block', reason?: string, matched?: string}. Include in tool description or as a separate schema field.
• Enhance check_command description: 'Returns safe (execute), warn (log and ask user), or block (do not execute). If block, the command matches a dangerous pattern or blocked command list.'
• Add discovery guidance to list_protections and scan_repo: 'Call list_protections first to see what files/commands are protected in this repo. Call scan_repo to get a safety score and risk summary.'
• Add enum descriptions for check_file_access operation parameter: 'read: Check read access, write: Check write/create access, delete: Check delete access'.