ollama_run

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

With no annotations present, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Run a prompt', omitting whether the operation is synchronous, streaming, has side effects (e.g., model loading), requires network, or consumes tokens. This is a critical gap for an AI agent deciding to invoke the tool.

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 single sentence is technically concise but too brief to be helpful. It primarily restates the function name ('Run a prompt with an Ollama model') without earning its place through additional context. A more informative structure (e.g., listing key behavior points) would be appropriate for a 3-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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not cover return value format (raw text vs JSON), error handling, timeout behavior, or prerequisites (model must be pulled first). The tool is simple but needs more context for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., does not explain the interplay between system and prompt, or model naming conventions). Thus it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 clearly states the action (run) and the resource (a prompt with an Ollama model). While it distinguishes from other Ollama siblings (list, pull, delete), it does not differentiate from the claude_ask tool which also runs prompts but with a different backend.

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 guidance is provided on when to use ollama_run versus sibling tools like ollama_pull (to ensure model is available), ollama_status (to check readiness), or claude_ask. The description lacks any conditional advice or exclusion criteria.

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