Sidecar Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by framing the tool as a report. It adds valuable context beyond the annotation by specifying what 'status' means—importability and runtime readiness—which is more informative than a generic status check.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb 'Report' and immediately specifies the subject and the exact conditions being checked. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool without an output schema, the description is nearly complete: an agent knows it will learn whether the sidecar is importable and runtime-ready. It could theoretically specify the return shape more explicitly, but the phrasing is sufficient for a simple boolean-style report.

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 and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter details for the description to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and output rather than inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('Report'), a specific resource ('agentic-sidecar'), and two concrete checks (importability and decision runtime readiness). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like core.health and core.verify, which are more general health checks.

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 the use case: check whether the sidecar is ready. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to core.health or core.verify, nor does it give when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance. The intended context is clear but left to inference.

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