server_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the '[READ]' prefix merely restates that. The description adds that the call returns version info, but says nothing about auth requirements, failure/timeout behavior, or latency, which would matter for a reachability probe.

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?

Two short elements, front-loaded with the purpose before the argument note. No filler sentences; every line earns its place.

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 one-optional-param read probe with no output schema, the description covers what is checked (reachability + version) and how to select a target. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 burden for the single 'target' parameter. It explains that target is an 'Ollama target name from config' and that omitting it selects the default, which is real meaning beyond the bare anyOf string/null schema.

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 verb+resource: it checks Ollama reachability and reports its version. That is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (list_models, running_models, pull_model, etc.), though it never explicitly names what it is not for.

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 implied (call this to see whether the Ollama server is up and what version it runs), and the param note 'omit for the default' gives a small routing hint. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to alternative siblings.

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