running_models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description reinforces it with a '[READ]' marker, so the safety profile is covered twice over. It adds the useful detail that results include VRAM footprint and residency expiry, but says nothing about freshness, scoping to a single target, or failure modes when the target is unreachable.

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 key information (read-only, currently loaded, what is returned) is front-loaded in a single line, with the argument detail tucked into an Args block. The prose is tight with no filler; the Args block is slightly heavyweight for one optional parameter.

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 no output schema, the description must at least signal what comes back, and it does (VRAM footprint + residency expiry). For a zero-required-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, that is close to sufficient, though the shape/units of the returned figures remain unknown.

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 carries the full burden for the single parameter — and it does: 'Ollama target name from config; omit for the default' explains both meaning and the optional/default behavior. No format examples or naming conventions for targets are provided, which keeps it from a 5.

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 gives a specific operation (list currently loaded models) and even names the returned content (VRAM footprint + residency expiry), which lets an agent separate it from list_models (catalogue listing) and vram_usage. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'currently loaded models' and the '[READ]' tag. There is guidance for the target argument ('omit for the default') but no statement of when to prefer this over list_models, vram_usage or server_status.

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