model_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only indicates the tool is a 'READ' operation but fails to detail side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The lack of safety or mutability context is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences plus parameter definitions. The '[READ]' prefix quickly signals the tool's operation, and every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should clarify the return format or structure. It mentions 'License / parameters / capabilities' but does not specify what data is returned or how to interpret it. This leaves uncertainty for the agent about the tool's output expectations.

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 0%, so the description must define parameters. It adequately explains 'model' with an example ('llama3.2:3b') and 'target' with guidance ('Ollama target name from config; omit for the default'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could be slightly more detailed about accepted formats or constraints.

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 'License / parameters / capabilities for one model' with a '[READ]' prefix, establishing a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'list_models' (all models) and 'running_models' (only running models) by focusing on a single model's details.

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?

Explicitly lists parameters with examples ('e.g. "llama3.2:3b"') and explains when to use them (omit target for default). While it lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives, the context of being a single-model detail retrieval is clear, and the sibling list provides natural comparison points.

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