verify_token_inheritance

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes what defects are checked but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. The read-only nature is implicit from 'audit' but should be explicit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and scope. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what findings look like or how to interpret defect classes. It mentions 'defect-corpus classes' but does not elaborate on output format. Adequate for an audit tool but leaves gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, e.g., how parameters affect the audit. 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?

Description clearly states the tool audits a component for token-related defects including alias renames, cascade gaps, and color literals. It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_token_canonicality or check_token_fallbacks by covering a broader set of defects and referencing specific defect classes.

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?

Description explicitly advises using this tool before shipping extending components or migrating helix major versions. While it doesn't list when not to use or alternatives, the context is clear and actionable.

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