Bloom validate model

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that this is local HTTP, which is useful context, but does not explain validation failure behavior, prerequisites, or what specifically is checked.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the primary action stated first and the sequencing constraint immediately after. The final sentence about returning JSON validation fields is largely redundant given the output schema, keeping it from a 5.

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 output schema and full schema coverage for the single parameter, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly: purpose, local HTTP nature, and ordering relative to bloom_evaluate_model. It is less complete on error cases or validation criteria, but sufficient for a simple validation tool.

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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already documents that it expects a local Ollama model name. The description does not add syntax, format, or other meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: check whether a local Ollama model is reachable and suitable for Bloom. It also names the sibling it precedes (bloom_evaluate_model), making its role in the workflow distinguishable from related tools.

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?

Explicitly says to use this before bloom_evaluate_model, giving a clear ordering constraint. It does not state when not to use it or what to do if validation fails, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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