ollama_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does it well: it states the tool only talks to a loopback daemon, lists tags when running, does not install Ollama, and rejects non-loopback URLs. It does not describe failure behavior when the daemon is down, but the main side-effect and safety aspects are covered.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place. The primary purpose and default endpoint are front-loaded, followed by key constraints and exclusions. No fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 probe tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: target daemon, default URL, what it returns (tags), and key limitations. It could mention the behavior when the daemon is not running, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in most cases.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the base_url parameter. The description adds value by specifying the default URL (http://127.0.0.1:11434) and reinforcing the loopback-only restriction, going beyond the schema's basic parameter description.

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 states a specific verb ('Probe') and a specific resource ('loopback Ollama daemon'), with the default endpoint included. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling status tools like vllm_status and llamacpp_status by naming Ollama as the target.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when checking an Ollama daemon on loopback. It also gives explicit exclusions: it does not install Ollama and rejects non-loopback URLs. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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