history_setup_ollama

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool runs 'brew install' and 'brew services', and may prompt for sudo, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as whether it pulls a model, modifies system state beyond installation, or the effects of different flag combinations. The pros/cons list adds context but not exhaustive transparency.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a prerequisite statement, a command detail, and a pros/cons list. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy, and the most critical information (what it does) is front-loaded.

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 gives a good high-level overview but does not explain how the boolean flags (install, pull_model, start_service) interact or what the default behavior (all false) would do. This could lead to confusion about invoking the tool with no arguments. However, since the schema details each parameter and an output schema exists, the description is not severely incomplete.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to compensate. The text mentions using 'brew install' and 'brew services', which loosely maps to the install and start_service parameters, but it does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Install Ollama via Homebrew (macOS).' This is a specific verb (Install) plus resource (Ollama via Homebrew). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool history_setup_ollama_direct, though the mention of Homebrew implies the distinction.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Requires Homebrew pre-installed') and notes a limitation ('may prompt for sudo on first install'). It implies when to use the tool (when Homebrew is available) but does not mention alternatives like history_setup_ollama_direct or state when not to use it, leaving the guidance incomplete.

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