ollama_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the model doesn't exist, or if it requires network access. The description only states it 'gets information,' offering no depth on side effects, errors, or performance.

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?

The description uses a single clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. While concise, it could benefit from additional context without sacrificing brevity.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It doesn't specify the nature of the 'detailed information' returned, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., model must be pulled), leaving the agent to assume a capable implementation may not exist.

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%, meaning the schema already documents the 'model' parameter as 'Model name.' The description adds no further semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific model'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like ollama_list (which lists all models) or ollama_status (which checks overall Ollama health). However, it doesn't specify what kind of information (e.g., architecture, parameters, quantization), leaving some ambiguity.

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 this should be used instead of ollama_list when a user needs details on a single model, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., model must exist), or alternatives among siblings.

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