ollama_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is intended for simple tasks and explicitly warns against complex reasoning, which is a key behavioral limitation. It also mentions the token-saving rationale. However, it doesn't describe output format or error behavior, which would enhance transparency further.

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 composed of two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then providing usage guidance. It is concise and every sentence earns its place, though the use of ALL CAPS for emphasis is slightly distracting but does not harm clarity.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide context. It sufficiently covers purpose, usage boundaries, and the reason for preferring this tool. It doesn't explicitly mention prerequisites like local Ollama being installed or running, but the name and description imply this. Overall, adequate for a chat 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?

The description does not mention any parameters, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the schema. Schema description coverage is 67% (model and messages are described, temperature is not). The description adds no extra meaning for parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the moderate schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Have a conversation with local Ollama for SIMPLE Q&A, factual questions, or basic explanations.' This uses a specific verb ('have a conversation') and resource ('local Ollama'), and the scope ('SIMPLE Q&A...') distinguishes it from sibling tools like code generation or summarization.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Prefer for routine queries to save Claude tokens' and 'AVOID for complex analysis, nuanced discussions, or tasks requiring sophisticated reasoning.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions, even though specific sibling alternatives are not named.

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