ollama_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior: bypassing AION's persona and memory, which is significant. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as whether it is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or the response format. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core action and then provides contextual use cases. Every word earns its place.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining purpose and usage. It does not explicitly state what the return value is, but that is largely implied for a query tool. It could benefit from mentioning that the output is the model's response, but overall it is complete enough for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond reinforcing the 'raw prompt' aspect, which aligns with the prompt parameter. There is no additional explanation of model, system, or temperature, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Send a raw prompt directly to Ollama'. It specifies the verb (send), resource (Ollama), and scope (raw prompt bypassing persona/memory). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aion_query (which presumably uses persona/memory) and openai_query (different model provider).

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 clear use cases: 'Useful for model testing, one-off queries, or comparing model outputs.' It also implies when not to use by noting it bypasses AION's persona and memory, suggesting that contextual queries should go elsewhere. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like aion_query, so it falls short of full explicitness.

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