Sidecar Module Inventory

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

The 'current' qualifier indicates the result reflects the present scaffolded state, and 'present in agentic-sidecar' scopes the operation. The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile; the description adds minor contextual scoping but does not disclose output format or any further behavioral traits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the verb and object with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool.

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?

For a tool with no parameters, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. It specifies the exact scope (current scaffolded modules, adapters, and integration placeholders in agentic-sidecar), leaving no critical ambiguity for the agent.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter details are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('current scaffolded modules, framework adapters, and integration placeholders present in agentic-sidecar'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like core.health, core.version, or sidecar.status, which concern runtime status rather than inventory of scaffolded components.

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 intended use is implied by the description — call it when you need a listing of scaffolded modules, adapters, or placeholders — but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling exclusions or usage conditions are mentioned.

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