history_system_check

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

The description discloses the specific system components checked (macOS, Apple Silicon, RAM, Homebrew), offering useful context. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what output format to expect, or any potential side effects, leaving some ambiguity about its behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and lists the checks in a compact list format. No redundant words or unnecessary details.

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, zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential information: what it checks, when to use it, and its relationship to setup. The output schema presumably handles return values, so no further description is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to clarify. The description adds context about the tool's purpose, which is sufficient. Baseline of 4 applies as there are no parameters.

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 ('Check') and identifies the exact resource ('system meets requirements for Ollama embeddings'), listing the specific attributes verified. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling setup and status tools by focusing on pre-installation verification.

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 explicitly states 'Use before attempting Ollama setup,' providing direct when-to-use guidance. This differentiates it from the setup and status sibling tools, making the alternative clear.

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