ollama_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It is a read-only, non-destructive check, but the description doesn't state this explicitly. It also does not mention what happens if Ollama is not installed (error vs. status false). With no annotations, a brief mention of the return behavior or safety would improve transparency.

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 is a single, complete sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word is necessary, and there is no superfluous text. It is appropriately concise for a simple, parameterless 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 status check with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting that it checks the local service (since Ollama could be remote) or indicating the type of result (boolean vs. status string). Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 has no parameters (0), and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add param meaning because there are none. It correctly omits any param-related text, meeting 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 ('Check') and the target resource ('Ollama service'). It also uses a specific verb-resource combination that is distinct from siblings like 'ollama_list' or 'system_status'. However, it could additionally clarify that it checks local availability, not a remote service.

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 usage when needing to verify Ollama service status before other operations, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over 'system_status' or 'claude_status'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. With many sibling tools, more explicit guidance would help.

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