Sidecar Module Inventory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered and the bar for the description is lower. The description adds useful content detail by naming the three inventory categories (modules, adapter files, placeholders), but says nothing about return format, pagination, or whether the inventory is live vs cached.

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 with the verb first and the enumerated result categories following. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 carries the job of explaining what comes back, and it does so at the category level. For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with readOnlyHint set, this is close to sufficient, though it does not characterize the shape or size of the listing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden; the baseline of 4 applies. The description wastes no effort on parameters and instead clarifies the result content.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List installed modules, framework adapter files, and integration placeholders', scoped to agentic-sidecar. The three enumerated categories make it clearly distinct from siblings like sidecar.status or core.health, though the description never names an alternative to differentiate explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource (an inventory of what is installed), but the description offers no when-to-use conditions and never contrasts itself with the nearest sibling, sidecar.status. An agent can infer intent but gets no routing guidance.

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