ddg_list_local_runtime_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool lists, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The name implies a read operation, but that is implicit.

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 a single concise sentence that contains all necessary information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and key resources.

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 has no parameters and includes an output schema, the description is sufficient for understanding the tool's purpose. It does not explain return values, but the output schema presumably covers that. Some additional context about when to list runtimes versus other list tools would improve completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides 100% coverage. The description adds value by clarifying the content of the list (free-seat status and runtimes), which goes beyond just the schema.

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 verb 'List' and the resources 'free-seat status' and 'requestable local runtimes', with specific examples (Ollama, llama.cpp, LM Studio, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ddg_list_models and ddg_list_services.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for listing models, services, public resources, etc., but no explicit when/when-not or alternative names are mentioned.

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