scout_sidecars

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Live-probe' implies active network checks, but it does not state whether this has side effects, requires authentication, affects the sidecars, or what happens on failure. The output schema covers return values, but safety and operational context are absent.

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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and targets. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter 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 simple zero-parameter probe with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, given several sibling scout tools, it lacks any context about when this probe is appropriate or what distinguishes it from alternatives like scout_doctor. The agent can invoke it safely but may not know when to prefer it.

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 nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. Schema description coverage is 100%, but no parameter semantics 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?

States a specific verb ('Live-probe') and resource ('ENScan_GO and proxy_pool sidecars'). An agent can tell it performs active probing of sidecar services. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like scout_doctor, which may also perform diagnostics, but the target is clear.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description says what it does but not when an agent should choose it over scout_doctor, scout_sessions, or other scout tools. There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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