ollama_summarise

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful capability boundaries (not for interpretation/analytical) and mentions token-saving for batch tasks, but it does not disclose return format, whether an external model call is made, or any other side effects/limitations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, use cases, batch/token-saving benefit, and an explicit avoidance warning. No wasteful filler.

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 description is adequate for a simple summarization tool, covering purpose, usage, and restrictions. However, it omits model parameter semantics and return/output behavior, which is notable given there is no output schema and no annotations to fill those gaps.

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 text and length descriptions, but the 'model' parameter has no schema description and is not mentioned in the tool description. The description's 'BRIEF' emphasis may conflict with the length parameter's default 'medium,' and no guidance is given for choosing among model or length values.

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 'Create BRIEF summaries for logs, documentation, or simple content,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like ollama_generate_text and ollama_chat by emphasizing 'factual condensation' and 'routine document processing.'

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 says 'Use for factual condensation and routine document processing' and 'AVOID for content requiring interpretation or analytical summarization.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, though it does not name a specific alternative sibling tool for the analytical cases.

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