Ollama-Omega

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, the description adds details like 'No authentication required,' 'No rate limits,' 'Makes a single HTTP GET to the Ollama daemon,' and 'On connection failure returns an error object without throwing.' This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's operational behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value—none are redundant or wasteful—making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's zero parameters, comprehensive annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and error handling, providing all necessary context for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly without needing to explain return values (handled by the output schema).

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 zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description does not need to explain parameters, but it implicitly confirms there are no required inputs by not mentioning any. This meets the baseline expectation for a zero-parameter tool.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Check Ollama daemon connectivity' and 'list currently running models'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'ollama_list_models' which lists all installed models. This provides a precise and differentiated purpose statement.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this tool as the first call to verify the Ollama service is reachable before calling any other tool' and 'Do not use this to list all installed models — use ollama_list_models instead.' This clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives, including a specific exclusion.

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