history_ollama_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the main behavior: returns whether Ollama is running and if the embedding model is available. However, it does not mention that the status is cached by default or that force_refresh controls staleness—this is only in the parameter schema, not the main description.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second states what it returns, and the third gives a usage recommendation. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 status-checking tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete: it clearly states what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The output schema covers the return structure, so the description does not need to elaborate further.

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 schema covers 100% of parameter information, including a description for force_refresh ('Force refresh the cached status'). The tool description itself does not add parameter semantics, but since the schema fully documents the parameter, 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check Ollama server status and available models.' It clearly states what the tool does, distinguishes it from sibling tools like history_setup_ollama and history_system_check by focusing on status/availability, and explicitly mentions the key outputs (running status and embedding model availability).

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 guidance: 'Use to check if semantic/vector search is available.' This indicates when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the sibling context and clear 'use to' framing give adequate direction without confusion.

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