running_models

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

The description explicitly marks the tool as [READ], indicating read-only behavior. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not mention any side effects or permissions, but for a read-only tool, the behavior is sufficiently disclosed.

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: two lines with no superfluous text. The first line states the purpose, the second explains the parameter. Every word serves a purpose.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential: what it returns and how to parameterize. It could mention the return format (list or object), but the stated info (VRAM footprint + residency expiry) is sufficient.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds meaning for the only parameter: 'target: Ollama target name from config; omit for the default.' This tells the agent what the parameter is and how to use it, compensating for the schema gap.

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 it reads currently loaded models and specifies the returned data (VRAM footprint + residency expiry). This is a specific verb-resource combination, and it distinguishes from siblings like list_models and vram_usage.

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 for checking loaded models and mentions the target parameter from config. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use this tool or when alternatives (like list_models) might be more appropriate.

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