verify_extension

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It details what the tool catches and notes that without subclassSourcePaths, the audit only inspects the CEM surface. No contradictions; the behavior is well disclosed.

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 paragraph that efficiently front-loads the purpose and then lists specific issues. It is clear and not overly verbose, though it could benefit from bullet points or a more structured format.

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 no output schema, the description explains the audit scope and behavior well. However, it does not describe the return format or what findings look like, which is a gap for an audit tool. Adequate but could be more 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters described in the schema). The description adds value by explaining the impact of subclassSourcePaths (deeper checks vs. CEM surface only), but this is only a slight enhancement over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 audits an extending component against its parent's contract surface, listing specific issues it catches (slot drift, ARIA regressions, etc.) and referencing defect-corpus classes. This distinguishes it from other audit/check tools in the sibling list.

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 explicitly says 'Use this BEFORE shipping any helix-pattern subclass', providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools, which would improve the score.

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