ollama_code_generation

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses a capability boundary (only simple/mechanical code) and defines scope, but does not describe return format, error behavior, or other runtime characteristics beyond that boundary.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with action and examples. Every sentence provides distinct value, and the AVOID clause is a compact clear exclusion.

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, low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context about scope and boundaries. It lacks explicit output return details but the examples and use cases make the intended result obvious.

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 covers 3 of 4 params (task, model, language), and temperature lacks a description. The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it neither adds nor detracts; baseline 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?

The description opens with 'Generate SIMPLE code' and lists concrete examples (getters/setters, CRUD, validation, boilerplate), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. The 'mechanical coding tasks' phrasing differentiates it from sibling text generation and chat 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?

It explicitly states 'Use for mechanical coding tasks that follow established patterns' and 'AVOID for architectural decisions, complex business logic...' providing clear when/when-not guidance. However, it does not name a specific alternative sibling to route complex code requests to.

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