ollama_models

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists models and selects a recommendation, but it does not disclose whether this operation is read-only, whether it accesses the local filesystem, or what 'safe' means in terms of behavioral constraints. It also doesn't explain any potential side effects or prerequisites, such as Ollama being installed.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose (listing models) and then adds the secondary purpose (selection). There is no redundancy or filler; every word serves a purpose. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and clear functionality.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete for a listing tool. However, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., how models are presented, whether the recommendation is a separate field) and any assumptions about the environment (e.g., Ollama must be installed). These are minor gaps but could affect correct interpretation.

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, so the schema requires no description. The description avoids adding unnecessary parameter details, which is appropriate. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that baseline by not introducing confusion.

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 verb 'Listet' (lists) and the resource 'installierte Ollama-Modelle', and includes an additional purpose of selecting a safe recommendation ('wählt eine sichere Empfehlung'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bridge_health or run_shared_file, which have unrelated purposes. The purpose is specific, though it could be clearer on what 'sichere Empfehlung' means.

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 a use case for discovering installed models and getting a safe recommendation, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, nor any reference to sibling tools. The usage context is only implied, not clearly defined.

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