Api chat ollama models retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the data comes from an external Ollama server; it says nothing about behavior when the server is unreachable, whether auth is required, or what shape the output takes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is as short as it can be, though that brevity is also the source of the missing guidance.

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 zero-param read with rich annotations the description is close to adequate, but there is no output schema and the description does not indicate what 'models' look like (names vs. objects) or what happens on connection failure. A brief return-format or failure note would close the gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain; baseline 4 applies. No parameter detail is needed or missing.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available models') with the source system ('Ollama server'), so the operation is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling, but no sibling in this catalog touches Ollama, so the name-plus-description is sufficient to disambiguate.

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?

There is no 'when to use' guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. Ollama configured/reachable), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is for discovering which local LLMs are installed.

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