rlm_system_check

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden of behavioral disclosure. Description implies a read-only verification but does not explicitly state if any side effects occur. The existence of an output schema partially compensates, but without mentioning return format, transparency is adequate but not enhanced.

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?

Two concise sentences: first sentence states purpose, second lists specifics and usage context. No fluff, well structured, and front-loaded with critical information.

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 no parameters and presence of output schema, description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool checks and when to use it. Could mention the output format, but that is likely handled by the output schema.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so description need not add parameter info. Schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter information, which is acceptable given no parameters exist.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks system requirements for Ollama with a specific model, using the verb 'check' and resource 'system requirements'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rlm_ollama_status and rlm_setup_ollama, which deal with status and setup respectively.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use before attempting Ollama setup', providing clear context for when to invoke. Lists what it verifies (macOS, Apple Silicon, etc.), but does not mention when not to use or alternatives, though the sibling tools imply alternatives.

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