analyze_token_canonicality

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses output contents (canonical status, replacement, provenance) but does not mention any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., if it modifies state), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. The agent cannot infer safety or permissions from this description.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core action. Every word is functional, with no redundancy. It could be slightly more structured, but overall it's efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description explains what it does and what it returns. However, it misses context about prerequisites (e.g., that a token map must be loaded), output format details, and whether pagination or limits apply. The role relative to sibling tools is hinted but not fully contextualized.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameter descriptions match the description text exactly (e.g., 'Omit to dump every alias in the map.' is repeated). The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 looks up token canonicality against deprecation history, returns canonical status, replacement, and provenance. It mentions its role as backbone of M4 finding generation and ad-hoc queries. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like find_token or check_token_fallbacks, which may have overlapping purposes.

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 when needing canonicality info (e.g., for M4 findings or ad-hoc queries), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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